70th  Congress  ) 

1st  Session  j 


SENATE 


j  Kept.  603, 
I  Fart  2 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


March  22,  1928. — Ordered  to  be  printed. 


Mr.  King,  from  the  Special  Committee  Investigating  Expenditures 
in  Senatorial  Primary  and  General  Elections,  submitted  the 
following 


SPECIAL  REPORT 

[Pursuant  to  S.  Res.  195,  227,  258,  and  324,  of  the  Sixty-ninth  Congress,  and  also 
S.  Res.  10  of  the  Seventieth  Congress,  first  session] 


Your  committee  reports  further  concerning  the  appearance  and 
testimony  of  Samuel  Insull  and  Daniel  J.  Schuyler,  both  of  Chicago, 
Ill.,  witnesses  before  vour  said  committee. 

/  \y 

It  will  be  recalled  that  in  Senate  Report  1197,  parts  1,  4,  and  5  of 
the  Sixty-ninth  Congress  (which  are  hereby  referred  to  and  made  a 
part  of  this  report)  the  complete  testimony  at  each  appearance  of 
these  witnesses  was  fully  reported  to  the  Senate. 

Quoting  from  Senate  Report  1197,  part  4,  Sixty-ninth  Congress 
(pp.  1  to  3): 

Comes  now  said  committee  and  further  reports  to  the  Senate  that  under  the 
authority  of  said  resolution  it  proceeded  to  take  the  testimony  of  various  wit¬ 
nesses  touching  the  matters  covered  by  said  resolution.  That  in  view  of  the 
authority  contained  in  said  resolution  and  of  the  fact  that  the  Senate  possesses 
the  inherent  power,  and  that  it  is  the  right  of  the  Senate  to  inquire  into  and 
ascertain  the  qualifications  of  its  Members;  and  that  the  Senate  is  also  charged 
with  the  duty  of  enacting  legislation  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  United 
States  Government,  and  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  section  4  of  Article  I 
of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  expressly  empowers  the  Congress  at  any 
time  by  law  to  make,  alter,  or  change  the  times  and  manner  of  holding  elections 
for  Senators  and  Representatives,  there  would  seem  to  be  no  doubt  as  to  the 
power  of  Congress  to  ascertain  all  facts  bearing  upon  any  of  the  subject  matters 
aforesaid. 

Your  committee  accordingly  sought  within  the  limits  of  its  just  authority  to 
pursue  its  inquires  and  lay  before  the  Senate  the  facts  touching  the  nomination 
of  candidates  for  the  Senate,  the  relation  of  such  nominations  to  the  general 
election  to  be  holden  on  the  2d  day  of  November,  1926,  together  with  such  in¬ 
formation  growing  out  of  said  elections  as  might  be  of  value  to  the  Senate  in 
framing  future  legislation. 

All  of  the  acts  of  the  committee  and  all  of  the  testimony  by  it  taken  are  dis¬ 
closed  by  the  printed  records  of  the  hearings,  which  are  hereby  referred  to  and 
made  a  part  of  this  report,  as  fully  as  though  set  forth  herein.  Likewise,  said  reports 
disclose  all  questions  which  were  propounded  to  the  witnesses,  together  with  the 
refusal  of  certain  witnesses  herein  named  to  answer  the  interrogatories  pro¬ 
pounded  and  the  reasons  alleged  by  said  witnesses  as  grounds  and  reasons  for 
such  refusal;  all  of  which  appears  in  said  printed  records. 


2 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


Your  committee  sets  forth  the  following  conclusions  of  fact  which  will  be 
found  to  be  sustained  by  said  printed  record: 

ILLINOIS 

On  the  13th  day  of  April,  1926,  there  was  holden  in  the  State  of  Illinois  a 
primary  election  at  which  candidates  for  the  United  States  Senate  were  to  be 
nominated,  and  also  certain  national,  State,  and  county  officers,  to  wit,  Repre¬ 
sentatives  in  Congress,  State  treasurer,  superintendent  of  public  instruction, 
State  senators,  State  representatives,  and  other  State  officers;  judges  of  county 
courts,  county  treasurer,  sheriffs,  county  clerks,  county  commissioners,  and  other 
county  officers. 

The  statutes  of  Illinois  relating  to  primary  and  general  elections  will  be  found 
in  Revised  Statutes,  1925  (Smith-Hurd)  (ch.  46,  secs.  1  to  495),  which  are  hereby 
incorporated  by  reference. 

For  all  practical  purposes  it  may  be  said  that  no  candidate  for  the  Senate  at 
the  last  election  in  the  State  of  Illinois  could  have  any  reasonable  hope  of  elec¬ 
tion  unless  nominated  in  the  primary  by  one  of  the  regular  party  organizations. 
The  intimate  relation  of  the  primary  and  general  election  and  the  interdependency 
of  the  latter  upon  the  former  can  not  be  subject  to  any  serious  dispute. 

The  evidence  discloses  that  Frank  L.  Smith  and  Senator  William  B.  McKinley 
were  the  leading  candidates  for  nomination  on  the  Republican  ticket  for  the 
United  States  Senate.  For  the  purposes  of  this  report  it  is  only  necessary  to 
briefly  refer  to  Senator  McKinley’s  organization.  His  campaign  was  directed 
by  Henry  I.  Greene  and  was  heavily  financed  by  Senator  McKinley  himself, 
ail  of  which  appears  more  fully  in  the  former  report  of  your  committee  (S.  1197,  pt. 
1),  which  is  herewith  incorporated  by  reference. 

The  campaign  of  Frank  L.  Smith  was  in  the  direct  charge  of  his  manager, 
Representative  Allan  F.  Moore.  The  facts  relating  to  the  collection  of  money 
and  the  contributors  and  the  inability  of  the  committee  to  secure  a  full  list  of  the 
contributors,  is  set  forth  at  page  5  of  the  committee’s  report  (No.  1197,  pt.  1.) 

The  evidence  clearly  discloses  that  the  so-called  Crowe-Barrett  organization, 
otherwise  known  as  the  Republican  organization  of  Cook  County,  was  a  powerful 
political  organization  or  combination  exercising  great  and  in  many  instances 
dominant  control  in  the  various  wards  and  precincts  of  Chicago. 

This  organization,  taken  as  a  whole,  was  directly  interested  in  the  promotion 
of  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Smith  for  the  United  States  Senate.  It  was  also  inter¬ 
ested  in  the  nomination  of  a  county  and  State  ticket.  There  were  a  few  defections 
from  the  general  course  and  policy  of  the  organization,  but  the  evidence  discloses 
that  the  Crowe-Barrett  organization  in  general  exercised  its  powerful  influence 
and  its  machinery  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Smith. 

It  is  fair  to  say  that  without  the  support  of  that  organization,  Mr.  Smith 
would  probably  have  been  defeated  at  the  primary.  The  evidence  sufficiently 
discloses  that  this  organization  expended  considerable  sums  of  monej^,  and  that 
the  whole  effect  of  the  money  received  by  it  went,  with  the  exceptions  of  the 
negligible  defections  as  above  stated,  to  promote  Mr.  Smith’s  nomination. 

The  foregoing  facts  make  it  manifest  that  it  was  impossible  for  your  committee 
to  ascertain  to  what  extent  money  was  used  to  influence  the  nomination  of  Mr. 
Smith,  unless  it  could  learn  the  amount  of  money  expended  by  the  Crowe-Barrett 
combination  in  conducting  its  general  fight  for  the  nomination  of  the  county 
and  State  ticket — Mr.  Smith  being  clearly  a  direct  beneficiary  of  all  of  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  that  organization  and  of  all  of  the  money  by  it  expended. 

Accordingly,  your  committee  sought  to  ascertain  how  much  moneys  had  been 
contributed  to  the  Crowe-Barrett  combination  and  the  method  of  expenditure  of 
such  moneys  and  the  benefits  accruing  to  Mr.  Smith  from  the  work  of  such 
organization  and  moneys  expended.  At  that  point,  the  committee  was  con¬ 
fronted  by  the  refusals  of  the  witnesses  hereinafter  named  to  answer  interroga¬ 
tories  put  to  them. 

Samuel  Insull  appeared  before  your  committee  and  was  sworn  on 
July  26,  1926.  He  reappeared  on  August  4,  1926. 

Quoting  from  Report  1197,  part  4,  Sixty-ninth  Congress,  pages 
15  and  16: 

The  witness,  Insull,  refused  to  testify  whether  he  gave  to  Robert  E.  Crowe 
a  sum  of  money — just  as  the  witness,  Crowe,  as  will  be  shown  later,  refused 
to  testify  whether  the  $15,000  alleged  by  him  to  have  been  expended  in  behalf 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


3 


of  a  Crowe-Barrett  candidate,  Capt.  Joseph  P.  Savage,  had  been  contributed 
to  him  by  Samuel  Insull.  The  witness,  Insull,  also  declined  to  answer  questions 
put  to  him  as  to  whether  he  had  given  $10,000  to  Roy  O.  West,  of  the  Deneen 
group,  which  was  supporting  the  candidacy  of  Senator  McKinley. 

Concerning  the  witness  Schuyler  the  following  statement  from 
the  same  report,  page  23,  is  fully  explanatory: 

Daniel  J.  Schuyler  appeared  before  your  committee  and  was  sworn  on  August 
5,  1926.  He  testified  that  he  was  an  attorney  for  Samuel  Insull;  that  he  had  held 
that  relationship  for  15  or  16  years;  that  he  contributed  $3,600  personally  in 
Frank  L.  Smith’s  interest;  and  that  he  had  paid  to  various  negro,  foreign,  and 
other  political  groups  who  were  interested  in  the  candidacy  of  Frank  L.  Smith  at 
least  $34,000  of  moneys  belonging  to  Samuel  Insull. 

When  questioned  as  to  any  further  contributions,  either  directly  or  indirectly, 
to  the  primary  campaign  by  him  personally  or  as  agent  of  Samuel  Insull,  the 
witness  Schuyler  steadfastly  refused  to  answer. 

On  February  21,  1927,  Samuel  Insull  and  Daniel  J.  Schuyler 
reappeared  before  your  committee  for  further  interrogation.  The 
following  excerpts  from  Report  1197,  part  5,  Sixty-ninth  Congress, 
page  1,  should  be  recalled: 

On  the  calendar  day  of  February  12,  1927,  your  committee  submitted  to  the 
Senate  the  complete  testimony  in  each  case  of  certain  witnesses  to  wit,  Robert  E. 
Crowe,  Samuel  Insull,  Daniel  J.  Schuyler,  and  Thomas  W.  Cunningham,  who, 
while  under  oath  before  your  committee,  had  refused  to  answer  certain  questions 
propounded  to  them  and  to  give  certain  information  as  directed  by  said  com¬ 
mittee  acting  pursuant  to  Senate  Resolution  195  of  the  Sixty-ninth  Congress, 
first  session. 

For  procedural  reasons  and  in  view  of  the  few  remaining  legislative  days  of  the 
present  Congress  and  apprehending  that,  if  the  said  witnesses  upon  second  hearing 
would,  or  could  be  induced  to,  modify  their  previous  refractory  and  contumacious 
conduct,  the  Senate  would  be  spared  the  necessity  of  consuming  valuable  time 
needed  for  the  consideration  of  important  legislation  in  these  matters,  accordingly 
your  committee  directed  the  said  Robert  E.  Crowe,  Samuel  Insull  and  Daniel  J. 
Schuyler,  *  *  *  to  appear  before  it. 

On  Monday,  the  21st  day  of  February,  1927,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.,  the  said 
witnesses  presented  themselves  before  your  committee  and  were  separately 
examined  under  oath.  In  each  case  a  portion  or  portions  of  the  record  of  the 
hearings  of  your  committee  containing  the  refusal  or  refusals  of  the  witness  to 
answrer  interrogatories  propounded  to  him  on  his  previous  appearance  or  appear¬ 
ances  were  read  to  the  witness,  the  same  or  substantially  the  same  interrogatories 
were  again  propounded  and  every  opportunity  was  given  to  each  of  the  four  said 
witnesses  to  answer  fully  and  thus  purge  himself  of  the  contempt  in  which  he 
stood  before  your  committee. 

In  the  same  report,  pages  46-47,  52-53,  your  committee  submitted 
the  following  observations: 

The  witness  Robert  E.  Crowe  answered  the  questions  put  to  him  by  your 
committee  and  supplied  the  infcrmaticn  previously  withheld  concerning  the  source 
of  $15,000  collected  by  him  in  behalf  of  the  regular  Republican  committee,  or 
Crowe-Barrett  organization.  Therefore  your  committee  recommends  that,  in 
the  discretion  of  the  Senate,  the  testimony  of  the  said  Crowe  as  above  set  forth  be 
considered  in  mitigation  or  rectification  of  his  previous  contumacy. 

The  witness  Daniel  J.  Schuyler,  an  attorney  for  Samuel  Insull,  modified  his 
previous  testimony  to  include  the  admissions  of  the  said  Crowe,  to  wit:  lhat  he 
had  contributed  a  sum  of  $2,000  personally  and  a  sum  of  $5,000  in  currency 
which  he  had  received  from  Samuel  Insull  to  the  said  Crow7e  to  be  expended  in 
behalf  of  Captain  Savage,  a  local  candidate  on  the  Crowe-Barrett  slate.  The 
witness  Schuyler  further  admitted  receiving  $40,000  in  cash  or  currency  in  two 
payments  of  $20,000  each  from  Samuel  Insull,  his  principal,  to  be  used  in  the 
Illinois  primary  elections,  but  refused  to  disclose  the  identity  of  the  person  or 
persons  to  whom  this  money  was  paid  or  the  purpose  for  which  it  wras  con¬ 
tributed,  other  than  the  general  statement  that  it  was  intended  for  local  political 
purposes.  He  further  refused  to  disclose  any  other  information  concerning  the 
transaction. 


4 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


The  witness  Samuel  Insull  likewise  modified  his  testimony  to  include  the 
admissions  of  the  said  Crowe  and  Schuyler,  to  wit:  That  he  had  paid  $5,000  in 
cash  to  his  attorney,  the  said  Schuyler,  to  be  contributed  through  the  said  Crowe 
as  aforesaid,  and  that  he  had  given  to  the  said  Schuyler  the  sum  of  $40,000  as 
aforesaid.  The  witness  Insull  refused  to  state  the  specific  purpose  for  which  this 
large  amount  of  money  was  to  be  expended  and  the  person  or  persons  to  whom 
it  was  paid. 

The  witness  Insull  read  a  prepared  statement  in  which  he  declared  in  substance 
that  he  released  all  others  involved  in  the  transaction,  but  that  he  regarded  him¬ 
self  as  bound  not  to  divulge  the  destination  or  purpose  of  his  contribution.  When 
asked  if  this  formal  release  included  his  attorney,  the  said  Schuyler,  the  -witness 
Insull  replied  that  he  regarded  Schuyler  bound  to  secrecy  equally  with  himself. 
The  witness  Schuyler  had  previously  stated  and  then  retracted  the  statement 
that  he  regarded  the  transactions  as  a  privileged  communication  between  lawyer 
and  client. 

Samuel  Insull  w~as  directed  by  the  committee  to  appear  again  before  it  on 
Saturday,  February  26,  1927,  at  10  o’clock  a.  m.,  in  order  that  the  said  Insull 
might  bring  checks  and  records  which  he  had  been  directed  to  furnish  to  the  com¬ 
mittee.  Upon  his  appearance  before  your  committee  the  said  Insull  was  again 
questioned  concerning  the  transactions  above  referred  to. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

It  will  be  seen  from  the  testimony  of  the  said  Insull  as  above  set  forth,  that 
he,  the  said  Insull,  again  refused  to  disclose  the  identity  of  the  person  or  persons 
to  whom  the  sum  of  $40,000  or  any  part  of  it  had  been  paid  or  the  purpose  or 
purposes  of  its  payment.  Moreover,  the  said  Insull  assigned  no  further  or  valid 
reasons  for  his  refusal  to  answer,  and  repeated  his  statement  previously  made  in 
effect  that  the  contribution  or  contributions  were  for  local  political  purposes  and 
that  he  considered  himself  bound  in  good  conscience  not  to  reveal  the  identity 
of  the  persons  as  aforesaid. 

Your  committee  has  perhaps  exceeded  the  limit  of  forebearance  in  its  method 
of  procedure,  but  it  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  Senate’s  power  to  punish  for  con¬ 
tempt  should  be  invoked  only  in  extreme  cases  and  after  every  indulgence  and 
resource  of  a  committee  of  the  Senate  has  been  exhausted. 

Therefore,  your  committee  reports  the  further  and  continued  obduracy  of  the 
said  Samuel  Insull  and  Daniel  J.  Schuyler,  and  recommends  that  they  be  ad¬ 
judged  in  contempt  of  your  committee  and  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 


On  January  7,  1928,  a  meeting  of  your  committee  was  held  pur¬ 
suant  to  Senate  Resolution  No.  1,  Seventieth  Congress,  first  session, 
to  hear  Frank  L.  Smith  and  certain  officials  of  the  State  of  Illinois 
concerning  his  right  to  a  seat  in  the  United  States  Senate. 

On  that  day  Samuel  Insull  and  Daniel  J.  Schuyler  also  presented 
themselves  before  your  committee  as  the  result  of  the  following  cor¬ 
respondence  (Senatorial  Campaign  Expenditures  hearings,  pt.  7, 
pp.  3404-3405): 

November  18,  1927. 


Senator  James  A.  Reed, 

Chairman  of  the  Special  Committee  created  by 

Senate  Resolution  195  for  Investigation  of  Campaign  Contributions , 

Senate  Office  Building,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Dear  Sir:  You  will  recall  that  in  the  early  part  of  this  year  I  appeared  as  a 
witness  before  said  committee,  and  refused  to  answer  certain  questions.  These 
questions  related  mainly  to  the  payments  aggregating  $40,000  which  I  stated  were 
made  by  me  to  Mr.  D.  J.  Schuyler  for  use  in  the  local  campaign  preceding  the 
Illinois  primary  of  April,  1926. 

I  beg  to  inform  you  that  I  am  now  willing,  and  I  desire,  to  appear  before  the 
committee  and  answer  these  questions.  I  hope  the  committee  will  give  me  an 
early  opportunity  to  appear  before  it  for  this  purpose. 

Yours  very  truly, 

Samuel  Insull 


November  21,  1927. 

Hon.  Samuel  Insull, 

Edison  Building,  72  West  Adams  Street,  Chicago,  III. 

Sir:  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  November  18,  in  which  you  state  in  sub¬ 
stance  that  you  now  desire  to  appear  before  the  special  committee  of  the  Senate 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  5 

to  answer  certain  questions  and  give  certain  information  which  you  refused  at 
previous  hearings  of  the  committee. 

In  reply  permit  me  to  say  that  when  the  committee  convenes,  your  letter  will 
be  submitted  to  it  for  its  consideration. 

Sincerely  yours, 

James  A.  Reed,  Chairman. 


[Telegram] 

December  17,  1927. 

Hon.  Samuel  Insull, 

Edison  Building,  Chicago ,  III. 

In  accordance  with  your  request,  I  am  authorized  by  the  special  committee  to 
notify  you  that  there  will  be  a  meeting  at  10  o’clock  Saturday,  January  7,  1928, 
at  which  you  may  be  heard.  You  will  also  bring  with  you  any  or  all  books,  papers, 
letters,  checks,  check  books,  and  accounts  relating  to  the  transactions.  This 
telegraphic  message  is  sent  in  order  to  give  you  the  earliest  possible  notice. 
Please  acknowledge. 

James  A.  Reed,  Chairman. 


[Telegram] 

Chicago,  III.,  December  19,  1927. 

Senator  James  A.  Reed, 

Senate  Office  Building. 

I  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  wire  of  the  17th  instant  notifying  me  that  there 
will  be  a  meeting  of  the  special  committee  on  Saturday,  January  7,  1928,  at 
which  I  may  be  heard.  I  shall  appear  before  the  committee  at  the  appointed 
time. 

Samuel  Insull. 

The  chairman  of  your  committee  then  stated: 

In  view  of  the  letter  of  Mr.  Insull  in  which  he  states  that  he  is  now  willing  to 
answer  certain  questions  that  were  asked  him  before,  and  which  he  then  declined 
to  answer,  we  will  hear  Mr.  Insull  at  this  time. 

The  testimony  of  Samuel  Insull  and  Daniel  J.  Schuyler  is  here 
printed  in  full: 

TESTIMONY  OF  SAMUEL  INSULL 

(The  witness  was  sworn  by  the  chairman.) 

Mr.  Gilbert  E.  Porter.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  like  to  have  the 
privilege  of  sitting  beside  Mr.  Insull  as  his  counsel. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  all  right,  Judge.  You  may  sit  wherever 
you  please. 

Mr.  Insull,  you  wrote  us  the  letter  of  December  18,  to  which  I 
have  referred  this  morning.  Do  you  now  desire  to  make  a  full  dis¬ 
closure  regarding  all  of  the  matters  concerning  which  we  inquired  of 
you? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes,  sir.  I  would  like  to  read  a  statement,  with 
your  permission,  on  that  subject,  which  I  think  gives  a  complete 
description. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Insull.  The  statement  is  as  follows. 

At  the  former  hearings  before  the  committee  I  answered  all  questions  asked 
me  relating  to  contributions  made  by  me  to  the  campaign  preceding  the  primary 
in  Illinois  held  April  13,  1926,  except  questions  relating  to  contributions  totaling 
$40,000  which  I  stated  were  made  by  me  for  promoting  candidacies  for  local 
offices.  I'  now  wish  to  give  the  committee  full  information  as  to  these  con¬ 
tributions  totaling  $40,000. 


6 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


Some  time  before  the  primary,  probably  in  February  or  March,  1926,  Mr. 
Daniel  J.  Schuyler,  who  is  one  of  my  attorneys,  came  to  me  and  suggested  that 
I  make  a  contribution  of  $20,000  to  Mr.  Charles  F.  Francis  for  the  so-called 
Small-Lundin  organization  and  also  a  contribution  of  $20,000  to  Mr.  George  F. 
Harding  for  the  so-called  Harding  organization.  Mr.  Schuyler  told  me  that  he 
had  talked  with  Mr.  Francis  and  with  Mr.  Harding  and  that  he  had  told  each 
of  them  that  he  would  lay  the  matter  before  me  and  ascertain  what  I  would  do. 

Senator  La  Follette.  Did  Mr.  Harding*  represent  any  organiza¬ 
tion? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  would  call  that  the  so-called  Harding  organization. 
He  works — oh,  I  should  say  his  affiliation  is,  Mr.  Senator,  with  the 
present  mayor,  with  Mayor  Thompson,  but  he  has  affiliations  at 
different  times  with  most  of  the  local  groups — the  Republican  groups. 

Senator  La  Follette.  What  is  his  business? 

Mr.  Insull.  Looking  after  his  own  investments.  He  is  a  very 
rich  man.  I  continue  with  my  statement: 

Mr.  Schuyler  at  the  same  time  told  me  that  the  money  would  be 
used  for  the  local  campaign  in  Cook  County.  I  agreed  with  Mr. 
Schuyler  to  make  the  contributions  as  requested  and  I  gave  him 
$40,000  in  currency  with  the  understanding  that  he  was  to  pay 
$20,000  to  Mr.  Francis  and  $20,000  to  Mr.  Harding.  Afterwards 
Mr.  Schuyler  reported  to  me  that  the  contributions  had  been  made. 

After  the  investigation  of  this  committee  was  commenced  Mr. 
Schuyler  advised  me  that  both  Mr.  Francis  and  Mr.  Harding  had 
requested  that  he  and  myself  refrain  from  disclosing  their  names  as 
recipients  of  this  money.  That  is  the  reason  why  I  declined  to  give 
the  names  at  the  former  hearings. 

Recently  Air.  Schuyler  reported  to  me  that  he  had  seen  Mr. 
Francis  and  Air.  Harding  and  that  each  of  them  stated  that  he  was 
now  willing  that  I  should  inform  the  committee  about  the  contribu¬ 
tion  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  tell  us  any  more  definitely  the  date 
when  you  had  this  conversation  with  Air.  Schuyler  which  you  say 
occurred  in  February  or  March? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  have  not  any  means  of  fixing  that  date. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  deliver  this  $40,000  to  Air.  Schuyler 
yourself? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  In  what  form  was  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  In 'currency. 

The  Chairman.  Where  were  you  when  you  gave  it  to  him? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  was  in  my  office,  Room  17,  72  West  Adams  Street, 
Chicago. 

The  Chairman.  Was  anyone  else  present  except  Mr.  Schuyler 
and  yourself? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  not  that  I  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  get  the  $40,000  that  you  gave  to 
Mr.  Schuyler? 

Mr.  Insull.  My  recollection  is  that  I  had  some  currency  on  hand 
at  that  time,  and  I  gave  it  out  of  that.  That  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  In  your  office? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  had  it  there  to  give  him;  yes.  Of  course,  I  would 
not  keep - 

The  Chairman.  You  had  brought  it  there  from  some  place? 

Mr.  Insull.  Out  of  my  safe. 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


7 


The  Chairman.  Your  safe  where? 

Mr.  Insull.  In  my  office  there. 

The  Chairman.  That  same  office  there? 

Mr.  Insull.  Not  in  that  particular  room. 

The  Chairman.  That  suite  of  offices? 

Mr.  Insull.  That  suite  of  offices. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  taken  the  money  to  the  safe  and  put  it 
in  the  safe  for  the  purpose  of  making  any  contributions  or  payments 
of  this  character? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  had  the  money  there.  It  accumulated  one 
way  and  another. 

The  Chairman.  It  had  been  there  some  time? 

Mr.  Insull.  Quite  some  time.  Some  of  it  was  money  that  was 
paid  back  to  me,  that  I  had  received  in  currency,  and  some  was 
money  I  had  drawn  at  different  times. 

The  Chairman.  This  money  was  collected  by  some  of  the  com¬ 
panies  you  were  associated  with? 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  It  is  my  own  funds.  As  I  have  already  testi¬ 
fied,  all  the  money  I  spent  at  that  time  was  money  of  my  own. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  tell  us  the  source  of  any  part  of  this 
$40,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  No,  except  that  it  came  from  my  own  drawer. 

The  Chairman.  I  kiiow,  but  in  order  to  get  into  the  drawer.  It 
was  not  always  in  the  drawer. 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  I  have  no  recollection.  Of  the  source  of  that 
particular  money  I  have  not  any  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  drawn  any  money  from  the  company 
shortly  before  that? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  testified  in  my  main  examination  that  I  drew 
money  from  the  Commonwealth-Edison  Co.,  and  repaid  it  to  them, 
and  your  committee  has  my  canceled  check  at  this  time,  I  think. 

The  Chairman.  We  returned  it  to  you. 

Mr.  Insull.  My  confidential  man  has  it,  then. 

The  Chairman.  Instructions  were  given  to  return  it.  I  take  it,  it 
was  returned.  But  that  was  not  part  of  this  $40,000,  was  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  My  total  expenditures  were  $237,925.  Of  that, 
$125,000  went  to  Mr.  Smith’s  campaign,  through  Mr.  Allen  Moore; 
$5,000  to  Mr.  Crowe’s  campaign,  for  Mr.  Savage,  through  Mr. 
Schuyler;  $40,000,  being  the  $40,000  referred  to,  $2,925  for  world’s 
court  propaganda,  $15,000  to  M.  Brennan,  $10,000  to  Mr.  Barrett, 
and  $10,000  to  Mr.  West. 

Senator  King.  Did  you  say  Mr.  West? 

Mr.  Insull.  That  was  a  local  campaign. 

Senator  King.  But  the  name  was  West,  was  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  Roy  O.  West.  That  appears  in  a  question  that 
Senator  La  Follette  asked  me  when  I  was  on  the  stand  before.  All 
those  expenditures  were  my  own  money.  The  money  I  had  borrowed 
I  paid  back. 

The  Chairman.  You  testified  before  that  certain  moneys  you  had 
obtained  by  having  put  into  the  drawer  of  the  Commonwealth- 
Edison  Co.  cash  item  tickets. 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  testified  that  you  had  paid  back  those 
moneys  by  check? 


8 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  asking  if  this  $40,000,  or  any  part  of  it, 
was  drawn  from  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Co. 

Mr.  Insull.  My  impression  is  that  it  was  not,  Senator. 

Senator  La  Follette.  In  order  to  refresh  your  memory,  Mr. 
Insull,  I  read  from  a  statement  you  made  when  you  appeared  here 
on  February  26,  1927,  which  I  believe  you  had  prepared  at  that 
time.  If  you  have  part  5  there  you  will  find  it  on  page  49.  You 
said: 

All  of  the  $65,000  contributed  to  influence  the  nominations  for  local  offices 
in  Cook  County  was  furnished  by  me,  partly  from  my  own  funds  and  partly 
from  money  which  I  borrowed  at  the  time  and  have  since  repaid. 

The  Chairman.  Your  last  sentence  in  that  statement  ends,  “partly  from  my 
own  funds  and  partly  from  money  which  I  borrowed  at  the  time  and  have  since 
repaid.”  Did  you  get  that  also  from  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Co.? 

Mr.  Porter.  I  advise  the  witness  not  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Your  consul  has  stated  that  he  advises  you  not  to  answer 
the  last  question  I  asked.  Do  you  refuse  to  answer? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  refuse  to  answer  on  the  advise  of  counsel. 

That  is  also  found  in  part  6  of  the  hearings,  page  3396. 

Mr.  Insull.  I  see  that. 

Senator  La  Follette.  At  the  time  you  referred  to  that  $65,000 
did  you  include  the  $40,000  which  we  now  have  under  discussion? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes.  You  will  see  that  all  figures  are  part  of  it. 

Senator  La  Follette.  That  is,  the  $40,000  was  a  part  of  this 
$65,000  which  you  stated  on  the  26th  of  February — 

was  furnished  by  me,  partly  from  my  own  funds  and  partly  from  money  which  I 
borrowed  at  the  time  and  have  since  repaid. 

Mr.  Insull.  What  I  referred  to  there  as  borrowed — I  had  the 
figures  before  me  at  that  time — 

partly  from  my  own  funds  and  partly  from  money  which  I  borrowed  at  the  time 
and  have  since  repaid. 

That  is  involved  in  the  same  transaction;  that  a  part  of  the  money, 
of  the  $40,000,  came  from  my  own  funds  and  part  of  it  came  from  the 
borrowings  from  time  to  time  which  I  covered  by  the  repayment 
of  $190,000. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  borrowings  from  the  Commonwealth 
Co.,  which  you  repaid  by  check  to  the  Commonwealth  Co.? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  and  which  I  testified  to. 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  were  in  error  a  few  moments  ago  when 
you  said  that  you  did  not  know  whether  any  of  this  money,  this 
$40,000,  had  come  from  the  Commonwealth  originally? 

Mr.  Insull.  Well,  I  could  not  tell  positively,  because  at  the  time 
I  was  paying  out  quite  a  good  deal  of  money  and  I  had  quite  a  good 
deal  of  currency  myself  of  my  own. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  your  statement  now  that  part  of  this  $40,000 
came  from  the  Commonwealth,  and  that  you  afterwards  repaid  it  in 
this  check  of  one  hundred  and  ninety-odd  thousand  dollars? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  would  say  that  that  represents  the  situation. 

Senator  King.  How  long  after  you  made  your  borrowing  did  you 
make  the  repayment  to  the  company? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  some  months — quite  some  months.  I  was  in 
Europe  in  the  meantime. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  see,  now,  if  we  can  not  get  this  whole  matter 
in  a  sort  of  chronological  arrangement. 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  9 

You  testified  before,  I  believe,  that  you  went  to  Europe  about 
March  17,  1926. 

Mr.  Insull.  That  is  right. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  you  returned  from  Europe  about  May 
12,  1926.  Before  you  went  to  Europe  what  arrangement  had  you 
made  with  reference  to  the  payment  of  moneys  for  campaign  pur¬ 
poses,  and  what  moneys  had  you  paid  out  up  to  that  time? 

Mr.  Insull.  That  I  could  not  tell  you.  That  I  do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  not  some  memorandum  or  book  that 
shows? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  have  no  books  on  the  subject. 

The  Chairman.  Before  you  went  to  Europe  had  you  personally 
delivered  any  moneys  to  any  person  for  campaign  purposes? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  yes.  I  could  not  tell  you  exactly  what  was  de¬ 
livered  before  I  went,  but - 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  I  want  to  find  out  if  you  can  tell 
us;  and,  if  you  can  not  tell  us  exactly,  as  nearly  as  possible. 

Mr.  Insull.  My  impression  is  that  the  funds  that  I  subscribed  to 
Mr.  Smith’s  campaign  were  delivered  to  Mr.  Moore  before  I  went 
to  Europe. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  the  $125,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Now  let  us  get  at  that  transaction.  Just  tell  us 
all  about  it — who  came  to  you,  how  you  came  to  make  this  subscrip¬ 
tion,  where  this  subscription  was  paid,  how  it  was  paid,  etc.,  and 
whether  it  was  all  paid  at  one  time  or  paid  in  different  amounts. 

Mr.  Insull.  It  was  paid  at  different  times. 

The  Chairman.  Who  first  spoke  to  you  about  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  My  recollection  is  that  Mr.  Allen  Moore  spoke  to 
me  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  where  you  were  when  he 
spoke  to  you? 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  I  used  to  see  a  good  deal  of  him  when  he  was 
in  town,  just  as  I  do  now,  and  I  would  not  remember  just  where  we 
met. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  about  when  it  was? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  it  was  for  sometime  before  the  primary  campaign; 
sometime  during  the  previous  winter. 

The  Chairman.  Sometime  in  the  winter  preceding  the  primary? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  should  say  so.  I  used  to  see  him - 

The  Chairman.  You  transacted  that  business,  now,  directly? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Not  through  Mr.  Schuyler? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  transacted  it  directly. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  you  agree  to  give  at  that  time,  that 
first  conversation? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  think  I  pledged  myself,  and  had  in  mind  collecting 
a  good  deal  of  it  from  other  friends — I  pledged  myself  to  about 
$50,000.  •  ^  . 

The  Chairman.  You  had  in  mind  getting  it  from  other  friends? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  other  friends? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  friends  who  usually  act  with  me  in  such  matters. 
Then  I  changed  my  mind. 


10 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


The  Chairman.  Who  were  the  friends  that  you  had  in  mind  at 
this  time  who  usually  act  with  you  in  such  matters? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  think  when  I  came  to  sit  down  to  consider  whom  I 
would  go  to,  I  made  up  my  mind  I  would  do  it  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  but  you  had  somebody  in  mind.  Whom  did 
you  have  in  mind  that  usually  acts  with  you? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  do  not  remember  at  this  time,  Mr.  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Your  mind  is  blank  on  that? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  remember  who  I  had  in  mind.  I  simply 
thought  I  would  go  to  my  friends,  and  I  had  not  gotten  down  to 
consider  who  I  would  go  to  or  what  I  would  do. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  say  you  thought  you  would  go  to  friends 
you  usually  went  to.  Whom  did  you  usually  go  to? 

Mr.  Insull.  Well,  I  raise  money  for  all  kinds  of  purposes — some 
for  politics,  and  some  for  charity-— and  I  go  where  1  think  I  can  get 
it. 

The  Chairman.  I  did  not  ask  you  that.  Who  were  the  friends  that 
you  had  in  mind  that  you  usually  go  to  in  such  matters? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  just  told  you  I  had  not  any  one  in  mind. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  said  you  usually  went  to  some  friends. 
Who  are  these  people  you  usually  go  to? 

Mr.  Insull.  Well,  I  really  do  not  know.  It  would  depend  on  the 
purpose. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well. 

Mr.  Insull.  I  had  not  in  mind  any  one  in  particular  at  the  time. 
When  I  pledged  $50,000  I  thought  that  I  would  go  around  and  see  if 
I  could  raise  part  of  it,  and  then  I  finally  made  up  my  mind  I  would 
do  it  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  take  the  first  $50,000 :  Where  was  that  paid? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  paid  in  my  office  or 
elsewhere  in  Chicago.  I  really  do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  whether  it  was  paid  in  cash  or  in  a 
check? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  it  was  paid  in  currency. 

The  Chairman.  You  paid  it  yourself? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  that  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Where  were  you  when  you  handled  this  money? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  just  told  you  that  I  can  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  You  can  not  recall  that? 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  It  might  have  been  in  my  own  office;  it  might 
have  been  in  Mr.  Moore’s  room.  Sometimes  he  stayed  at  the  Union 
League  Club,  and  sometimes  at  the  Congress  Hotel.  It  might  have 
been  either  one  of  those  places. 

The  Chairman.  You  just  cannot  remember  an}Thing  about  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  I  would  say  more  probably  that  it  was  at  the 
Congress  Hotel. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  recollection  about  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  have  not,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  Then  we  do  not  care,  unless  you  have  a  recollec¬ 
tion.  All  right. 

Referring  to  that  $50,000,  where  did  you  get  the  $50,000  from  to 
take  to  Mr.  Moore? 

Mr.  Insull.  That  I  do  not  remember,  Mr.  Senator. 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  11 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  get  any  part  of  it  out  of  the  till  or  drawer 
or  safe  of  the  Commonwealth  Co.? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  put  any  cash  ticket  in  any  till  or  drawer 
or  safe  or  elsewhere  to  represent  that  money? 

Mr.  Insull.  That  I  do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  no  recollection  of  ever  having  done 
that? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  yes;  I  told  you  that - 

The  Chairman.  I  mean,  doing  it  with  reference  to  this  $50,000. 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  have  not. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  not? 

Mr.  Insull.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  What  was  the  next  contribution 
you  made  after  the  $50,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  remember  whether  it  was  $25,000 — my 
recollection  is  that  it  was.  I  think  it  was  $25,000,  and  then  the 
second  $25,000. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  stick  to  the  first  one.  Did  you  handle  that 
money  directly  yourself? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  I  handled  that  myself. 

The  Chairman.  To  whom  did  you  give  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  gave  it  to  Mr.  Moore. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  give  it  to  him? 

Mr.  Insull.  My  recollection  is  that  the  second  contribution  I 
gave  to  him  in  the  Congress  Hotel.  That  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  In  a  room  there? 

Mr.  Insull.  In  his  room  there. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  get  that  $25,000  from  that  you 
gave  to  Mr.  Moore? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  recollect  how  much  of  that  I  had  out  of  my 
own  drawer,  or  how  I  got  that,  exactly.  I  think  I  got  that  out  of 
my  own  drawer. 

The  Chairman.  Out  of  your  own  drawer? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  it  was  your  own  money  in  your  own  drawer? 
It  did  not  belong  to  the  company  or  any  companies? 

Mr.  Insull.  No. 

The  Chairman.  It  belonged  to  you,  Samuel  Insull,  personally? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes.  I  have  not  made  any  contribution  to  this 
campaign  except  contributions  of  my  own  money. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  took  that  out  of  your  own  drawer,  and 
did  not  take  it  from  the  Commonwealth  Co.,  then  you  did  not  put 
any  check  or  cash-item  slip  in  the  till  or  drawer  or  safe  of  the  Com¬ 
monwealth  Co.  for  that? 

Mr.  Insull.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  When  did  you  make  the  next 
contribution? 

Mr.  Insull.  It  must  have  been  very  shortly  afterward,  because  it 
was  before  I  went  to  Europe. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  fix  the  date  in  any  way  approximately? 

Mr.  Inull.  No.  The  first  $25,000  was  part  of  a  payment  that  I 
aid  I  would  give  $50,000  more,  making  $100,000. 

The  Chairman.  When  was  it  that  you  paid  the  first  $25,000? 


12 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


Mr.  Insull.  I  could  not  fix  the  exact  date.  I  did  not  keep  any 
dates. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you 'approximate  it,  Mr.  Insull? 

Mr.  Insull.  Well,  it  was  some  time  when  the  primary  campaign 
was  running. 

The  Chairman.  Oh,  yes,  of  course;  but  it  ran  for  a  long  time,  and 
that  does  not  help  us  a  bit.  Can  you  not  come  any  nearer  to  it  than 
that? 

Mr.  .Insull.  I  do  not  think  I  can,  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  When  did  you  pay  the  second  $25,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  A  relatively  short  time  after  the  first  twenty-five. 

The  Chairman.  And  as  you  can  not  fix  the  first  at  all, “a  relatively 
short  time  after”  for  the  second  does  not  help  us  very  much. 

Mr.  Insull.  I  can  fix  it  reasonably  close. 

The  Chairman.  I  wish  you  would. 

Mr.  Insull.  Just  a  short  time  before  I  went  to  Europe,  and  the 
record  shows  the  time  I  sailed  for  Europe — March  17. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  now,  that  is  more  definite.  Referring  to 
that  $25,000,  you  gave  that  to  Mr.  Moore  in  person? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  Congress  Hotel? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  where  did  you  get  that  money  from  in  order 
to  take  it  Mr.  Moore? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  got  that  out  of  my  drawer. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  your  personal  funds  entirely? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  am  inclined  to  think  it  was.  From  my  point  of 
view,  all  I  paid  out  were  my  personal  funds. 

The  Chairman.  I  understand  vou  make  that  statement.  What  I 
am  trying  to  get  at  is  whether,  as  an  initial  step  in  getting  any  of  this 
money,  you  obtained  part  of  it  from  the  commonwealth.  Having 
so  obtained  it,  you  treated  it  as  your  own  money  when  you  gave  it  to 
Mr.  Moore.  Now,  I  want  to  know  if  any  part  of  it  came  out  of  the 
moneys  of  the  Commonwealth  Co. — any  part  of  this  $25,000. 

Mr.  Insull  I  should  say  that  the  probablities  are  that  some  of  it 
did. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  of  it  did? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  approximate  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  can  not  approximate  it,  and  the  reason  I  can 
not - 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  that  you  took  it  from  the  Com¬ 
monwealth  Co.  at  all? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  do  not  remember,  but  I  paid  the  Common¬ 
wealth  Co.  one  hundred  and  ninety - 

The  Chairman.  I  am  not  asking  what  you  paid  them.  I  am  ask¬ 
ing  you  if  you  have  any  recollection  now  of  drawing  or  taking  any 
part  of  this  $25,000 — to  wit,  the  second  $25,000 - 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  have  not. 

The  Chairman  (continuing).  From  the  till,  the  drawer,  the  treas¬ 
ury,  or  in  any  other  way  from  the  Commonwealth  Co.  Have  you 
any  recollection  of  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  have  not  any  distinct  recollection  of  it,  but - 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  kind  of  a  recollection  of  it? 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


13 


Mr.  Insull  (continuing).  But  my  judgment  is  that  I  did. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  asking  you  if  you  have  a  recollection. 
You  say  you  have  no  recollection;  you  say  you  have  a  judgment. 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  have  no  recollection  of  drawing  the  money 
from  the  Commonwealth  Co.’s  treasury,  or  drawer,  or  till,  or  safe, 
I  suppose  you  have  not  any  recollection,  then,  of  having  put  any 
cash-item  slip  in  to  take  the  place  of  this  money  that  you  do  not 
remember  whether  you  drew  or  not? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  undoubtedly  any  money  I  got,  I  put  a  cash  slip 
in  for. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  but,  Mr.  Insull,  you  say  you  have  no  recol¬ 
lection  of  having  drawn  the  money.  Therefore  I  take  it  you  have 
no  recollection  of  having  put  any  slip  in. 

Mr.  Insull.  I  have  not;  but  what  }rou  asked  me  was  where  this 
money  came  from,  and  I  say  that  my  judgment  is  that  part  of  it 
came  from  that  source  and  was  included  in  the  $190,000  I  paid  back. 

The  Chairman.  I  will  give  you  a  full  opportunity  to  answer,  but 
I  want  to  stick  to  the  question.  You  have  stated  that  you  have  no 
recollection  of  having  drawn  any  of  the  $25,000  from  the  Common¬ 
wealth.  I  then  ask  you,  in  view  of  that,  if  you  have  any  recollection 
of  having  put  any  cash  slip  or  cash  item  in  the  drawers  or  tills  or 
safes  of  the  Commonwealth  Trust  Co.  to  represent  this  $25,000  or 
any  part  of  it.  Have  you  any  recollection  of  that  kind? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  have  told  you  I  have  not  any  recollection,  but 
my  judgment  is  that  I  got  a  part  or  the  whole  of  that  money  from 
the  Commonwealth  Edison  Co.  at  that  time. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  how  long  before  you  went  away? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  a  very  short  time  before  I  went  away. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  Did  you  give  any  other  money  to 
the  Smith  campaign  or  any  other  political  contribution  before  you 
left  for  Europe? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  not  before  I  left  for  Europe,  except  I  made 
arrangements - 

The  Chairman.  I  am  speaking  about  what  actually  was  delivered. 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  Oh,  these  other  transactions — yes;  part  of  them 
were  just  before  I  went  to  Europe. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  go  back  and  take  them  up  later  in  a 
separate  phase.  After  having  contributed  the  $50,000  and  the  two 
$25,000  contributions  before  you  went  to  Europe,  did  you  con¬ 
tribute  any  further  money  to  Smith’s  campaign  directly  at  any  time? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  I  contributed  another  $25,000  when  I  came 
back. 

The  Chairman.  After  your  return? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  transact  that  business  personally? 

Mr.  Insull.  Now,  I  do  not  know  who  transacted  that  business. 
I  have  not  any  recollection,  but  I  do  know  that  I  made  the  $25,000 
contribution  good  that  occurred  while  I  was  away.  That  is  my 
present — that  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  any  recollection,  really,  about  that 
last  $25,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  have  not  any  very  distinct  recollection  about  it. 
My  recollection  is  that — well,  I  just  have  not  any  very  distinct  recol¬ 
lection,  any  recollection,  about  it. 


14 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  about  giving  any  orders  or 
instructions  before  you  went  away  with  reference  to  further  con¬ 
tributions  to  Smith,  before  you  went  to  Europe? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  my  recollection  is  that  I  said  generally  I  would 
be  satisfied  to  help  some  more. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  authorize  anybody  to  pay  out  any  money 
on  your  behalf  before  you  went  away? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  remember  at  this  time. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  authorize  Mr.  Schuyler  to  pay  out  any 
money  for  you  to  Mr.  Smith  while  you  were  away? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  really  do  not  remember,  Mr.  Senator. 

The  Chairman.  And  did  you  authorize  Mr.  Schuyler  to  pay  out 
any  money  to  Mr.  Smith  after  you  returned? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  authorize  him  to  pay  out  any  money  while 
you  were  away? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  really  do  not  know.  I  have  not  any  recollection  on 
that  subject. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  perfectly  sure  now  that  you  made  one 
$50,000  contribution  and  afterward  three  $25,000  contributions? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  think  that  you  paid  these  moneys  to  Mr. 
Moore  in  the  Congress  Hotel? 

Mr.  Insull.  My  impression  is  that  I  paid  some  of  them  to  Mr. 
Moore  in  the  Congress  Hotel,  and  I  probably  paid  some  in  room  17, 
72  West  Adams  Street. 

The  Chairman.  You  now  think  that  you  did  make  one  payment 
or  how  many  payments  in  your  office? 

Mr.  Insull.  Well,  I  do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  are  perfectly  clear  that  you  made  at 
least  two  payments  in  the  hotel? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  my  impression  is  that  I  made  two  payments  in 
the  hotel.  I  paid  the  money,  and  I  did  not  keep  track  of  where  I 
paid  it.  Those  are  thinkgs  that  would  not  appeal  to  me  to  keep  in 
my  mind. 

The  Chairman.  So  far  as  the  payment  of  the  $125,000  to  Mr. 
Smith  was  concerned,  or  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Smith,  as  far  as  that  is 
concerned  you  have  no  recollection  at  this  time  of  having  put  any 
cash  items  in  the  records  or  drawers  or  safes  or  vaults  of  the  Com¬ 
monwealth? 

Mr.  Insull.  If  I  got  any  money  from  them  I  undoubtedly  put  in 
a  receipt  for  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  But  I  am  asking  about  your  recollection,  not 
your  deductions.  Have  you  any  recollection. 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  no.  Well,  I  can  not  answer  the  one  fairly  to 
myself  without  expressing  the  other. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  You  can  say  you  have  no  recollec¬ 
tion,  and  then  you  can  say  what  your  judgment  is,  if  you  desire;  but 
I  should  like  to  get  your  recollection  clear  if  I  can.  Have  you  any 
recollection  of  having  put  any  cash  items  in  the  Commonwealth 
records  to  represent  money  drawn  from  it  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Smith’s 
campaign? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  have  no  specific  recollection,  but  I  undoubtedly 
did  put  receipts  in,  as  I  undoubtedly  drew  part  of  the  money  tha 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  15 

way,  because  it  was  involved  in  the  payment  of  $190,000  that  I 
repaid  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Company. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  Now,  you  say  that  before  you  went 
to  Europe  you  had  paid  out  various  other  political  contributions  that 
were  not  going  directly  to  Mr.  Smith  or  his  manager.  Will  you  now 
tell  us  what  those  payments  were  and  when  they  were  made? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  paid  out  $32,925  for  the  world’s  court  propaganda, 
and  I  made  that  arrangement  through  Mr.  Schuyler.  Sometimes 
he  would  get  money  from  me,  and  sometimes  he  would  carry  it 
until  he  could  get  around  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  When  was  that  money  paid  out? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  could  not  give  you  the  exact  date.  The  money 
was  paid  out  during  the  period  of  that  campaign,  starting  with  the 
winter  of  1925  and  ending  up  with  the  close  of  the  primary  campaign. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  not  all  paid  at  one  time? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  no;  it  was  paid  at  different  times.  He  testified 
to  that. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I  remember. 

Mr.  Insull.  He  knows  all  about  that,  and  I  do  not  know  the 
details  of  it,  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  give  this  money  that  Mr.  Schuyler 
contributed,  to  him  in  person?  Did  you  personally  give  it  to  him? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  think  I  did.  I  made  all  kinds  of  settlements  with 
him.  I  have  business  with  him  all  the  time.  I  refer  you  to  him  on 
that.  I  do  not  remember  the  details  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  I  want,  first,  to  get  your  recollection. 

Mr.  Insull.  My  recollection  is  that  I  asked  him  to  go  ahead  with 
the  campaign,  and  that  we  had  in  mind  that  we  would  spend  $25,000 
or  $30,000  on  it. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  He  went  ahead  with  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Ultimately  he  came  to  get  his  money? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  then  he  got  his  money  from  me. 

The  Chairman.  When  he  got  that  money  did  he  get  it  all  at  one 
time  or  at  different  times? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  at  different  times,  I  imagine;  but  I  have  not  any 
recollection  of  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  recollect  at  all? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  after  having  told  him  to  go  ahead,  I  would  have 
discharged  that  from  my  mind  altogether. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember,  when  you  paid  him  back  this 
money,  whether  you  paid  it  all  at  one  time  or  at  different  times? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  am  pretty  sure  that  I  paid  it  at  different  times,  but 
I  would  refer  you  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  all  your  money? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  yes;  decidedly  so. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  get  any  of  it  out  of  the  funds  of  the 
Commonwealth? 

Mr.  Insull.  None  that  I  have  any  recollection  of.' 

The  Chairman.  Then  you  have  no  recollection  of  having  put  in 
cash  items,  checks,  into  the  drawer  for  that,  have  you? 

Mr.  Insull.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  that  is  $32,000.  What  other  moneys  did 
you  contribute  before  you  went  to  Europe? 


16 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


Mr.  Insull.  My  recollection  is  that  the  $5,000  to  Mr.  Crowe’s 
fund  for  the  Savage  campaign,  and  that  the  $15,000  to  Mr.  Brennan 
for  the  local  primary  campaign,  and  $10,000  to  Mr.  Barrett,  and 
$10,000  to  Mr.  West,  all  for  the  same  purposes,  were  all  contributed 
before  I  went  away.  That  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  Did  you  personally  meet  Mr.  Crowe — 
Judge  Crowe — and  give  him  that  $5,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  That  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Where? 

Mr.  Insull.  But  I  am  not  quite  sure  of  that.  That  might  have 
been  given  him  by  Mr.  Schuyler;  but  it  is  my  recollection  that  I  saw 
Judge  Crowe  on  the  subject. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  do  not  recollect  the  actual  passing  of  the 
money? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  did  not  say  so.  I  saw  Mr.  Crowe  on  the  subject  of 
the  campaign,  and  a  little  later  on — I  am  under  the  impression,  but 
I  would  not  be  positive,  I  thought  that  was  through  Schuyler. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  your  own  private  money? 

Mr.  Insull.  Absolutely. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  draw  that  from  the  Common¬ 
wealth? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  did  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  have  any  recollection  of  doing  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  have  not  any  recollection  at  all. 

The  Chairman.  Then,  of  course,  you  have  no  recollection  of  put¬ 
ting  in  a  cash  slip  in  the  Commonwealth  records? 

Mr.  Insull.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  To  represent  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  And  can  you  fix  the  date? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  can  not. 

The  Chairman.  How  long  was  it  before  you  went  away? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  Was  it  a  short  time  or  a  long  time? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  really  could  not  tell  you.  It  is  no  use  for  me  to 
speculate  on  a  thing  that  I  can  not  recollect. 

The  Chairman.  You  gave  Brennan  $5,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  No,  sir;  I  gave  him  $15,000. 

The  Chairman.  $15,000;  that  is  right,  is  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  I  testified  to  that. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  I  remember.  I  am  trying  to  get  this 
together,  now,  in  a  consecutive  way. 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  when  that  was? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Was  not  that  just  a  day  or  two  days  before  you 
went  away?  Do  you  recall  that? 

Mr.  Insull.  Possibly  just  before — it  must  have  been  just  before — 
I  went  away. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  come  to  see  Mr.  Brennan  on  that 
occasion? 

Mr.  Insull.  Well,  I  see  Mr.  Brennan  very  frequently.  He  is  a 
very  intimate  friend  of  mine,  and  it  was  in  the  course  of  one  of  my 
interviews  with  him - 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  17 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  come  to  your  office,  or  did  you  send  him 
the  money? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  am  just  as  likely  to  go  to  his  office — more  likely  to 
go  to  his  office— than  to  have  him  come  to  my  office.  He  has  only 
got  one  leg  and  I  have  got  two,  so  that  I  am  very  much  more  likely 
to  go  to  his  office. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  you  speak  of  he  had  two  legs? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  he  had  not.  He  has  not  had  two  legs  for  many 
years. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  not  as  well  informed,  possibly,  as  you  are 
on  his  legs. 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  he  lost  a  leg  in  a  mine  years  ago. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  not  reflecting  on  Mr.  Brennan,  but  I  was 
under  the  impression  that  he  had  recently  lost  a  leg. 

Mr.  Insull.  No,  sir;  he  lost  a  leg  in  a  mine  when  he  was  back  in 
Brownwood,  a  long  time  ago. 

The  Chairman.  But  he  gets  around  pretty  well? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  go  to  his  office  because  he  was 
crippled  in  his  leg?  That  was  not  your  primary  reason  for  going  to 
his  office? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  but  I  went  to  his  office  to  show  him  the  courtesy 
of  calling  at  his  office,  just  as  he  comes  to  my  office  to  show  me  the 
courtesy  of  calling  at  my  office. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  went  there  were  you  on  one  of  these 
courtesy  calls  when  you  gave  him  the  SI 5,000,  or  was  that  a  sort  of  a 
business  call? 

Mr.  Insull.  You  can  put  it  either  way  you  like. 

The  Chairman.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  he  came  to  your  office,  did 
he  not? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  did  not  say  that,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  asking  you  whether  or  not  that  is  the  fact. 

Mr.  Insull.  I  say  I  can  not  remember  whether  he  came  to  my 
office  or  I  want  to  his  office. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  anything  about  handing  him 
this  money? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  can  not  say  that  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  anything  that  was  said? 

Mr.  Insull.  My  recollection  is  that  I  offered  it  to  him.  That  is 
my  recollection;  that  I  offered  it  to  him. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  saying  to  him,  “Old  fellow^, 
don’t  you  want  to  see  me  before  I  go  away”? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  might  have  said  that. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  recall  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  I  might  have  said  that.  Our  relations  are  very 
intimate. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  saying  to  him,  in  substance, 
“Don’t  you  need  any  money  for  the  great  Democratic  organization 
in  the  State  of  Illinois”? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  probably  did  not  use  that  language. 

The  Chairman.  In  substance,  did  you  express  that  thought? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  probably  did  not  use — express  that  thought,  as  to 
the  adjectives;  no. 

S.  Rept.  603,  pt  2 


2 


18 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


The  Chairman.  Leaving  the  adjectives  out,  “for  the  Democratic 
organization”? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  probably  asked  him  whether  he  needed  some 
money  for  the  Democratic  campaign.  . 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  that  he  said  anything  about  the 
character  of  the  opposition  that  he  would  meet  with  for  the  nomi¬ 
nation? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  remember  at  that  particular  time.  I  do  not 
remember  at  the  time  that - 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  not  remember  that  Brennan  said  to  you 
that  there  was  not  any  opposition  to  speak  of,  or  something  of  that 
kind? 

Mr.  Insull.  Of  course  Brennan  was  like  all  candidates. 

The  Chairman.  I  hope  you  will  not  classify  all  of  them  together. 

Mr.  Insull.  All  right;  most  of  the  candidates  of  my  acquaintance 
I  will  say. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  but  that  does  not  answer  my  question. 
Did  Mr.  Brennan,  in  substance,  state  to  you  that  there  was  really  no 
serious  opposition? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  really  do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  what  form  this  contribution 
was  in;  whether  it  was  cash  or  a  check? 

Mr.  Insull.  It  was  cash;  that  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  how  you  delivered  it  to  Bren¬ 
nan? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  whether  you  handed  it  to  him 
or  put  it  on  the  table  or  put  it  in  his  pocket? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  Lord;  no! 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  remember? 

Mr.  Insull.  My  gracious;  if  I  was  handing  $15,000  to  George 
Brennan,  I  would  present  it  to  him  like  that  [indicating],  of  course. 
I  had  a  perfect  right  to. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  it  is  so  unimportant  or  so  usual  that  you 
would  make - 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  do  not  occupy  my  mind  with  those  subjects. 
I  have  a  few  others  to  take  care  of. 

The  Chairman.  Pardon  me  if  I  ask  for  things  that  do  not  occupy 
your  mind.  Of  course  I  am  not  acquainted  with  your  inner  con¬ 
sciousness. 

Mr.  Insull.  I  want  to  give  you  all  the  information  I  can. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  I  am  trying  to  get.  I  am  tryin "  to 
get  it  just  as  pleasantly  as  we  both  can.  Very  well;  that  $15,000  was 
your  own  money? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  It  did  not  come  from  the  commonwealth? 

Mr.  Insull.  That  I  am  not  prepared  to  say,  whether  temporarily 
I  did  not  borrow  it  from  them. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  prepared  to  say  that  you  put  a  cash  ticket 
in  the  drawer? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  am  prepared  to  say  that,  if  I  borrowed  the  money. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  do  not  know  whether  you  borrowed  it  in 
that  case  and  you  do  not  know  whether  you  put  a  ticket  in  in  thi  > 
particular  case  or  not? 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


19 


Mr.  Insull.  In  all  these  various  transactions  involving  so  much 
mone}7,  on  which  I  had  $190,000,  or  rather  less  than  that,  to  pay 
back,  some  of  those  contributions — most  of  them — came  in  part  or  in 
whole  from  that  source;  no  question  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  a  deduction.  I  am  asking  you  for  your 
recollection,  if  you  have  any  recollection.  If  you  have,  say  so,  and 
if  you  have  not,  say  so.  Do  you  have  any  recollection  of  having 
put  a  cash  item  in  the  drawer  or  in  the  records  of  the  Commonwealth 
to  represent  any  part  of  this  $15,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  Of  that  particular  item,  no,  sin;  I  have  not  any 
recollection  on  that  particular  subject. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  what  I  am  trying  to  get  at.  Now,  you 
gave  $10,000  to  Mr.  Barrett? 

Mr.  Insull.  Mr.  Charles  Barrett. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  deliver  that  to  him  personally? 

Mr.  Insull.  That  is  my  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  in  cash? 

Mr.  Insull.  In  cash. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  where  you  were? 

Mr.  Insull.  It  is  very  seldom  that  I  saw  him  outside  of  my  office, 
so  that  I  should  say  that  I  delivered  that  in  Boom  17,  No.  72  West 
Adams  Street. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  remember  where  you  got  that  money? 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  My  recollection  is  just  the  same  on  that  as  it 
is  on  the  other  items. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  to  say,  you  might  have  taken  it  out  of  the 
Commonwealth? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  and  put  a  ticket  in. 

The  Chairman.  And  put  a  ticket  in? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  at  the  time  that  you  gave  him  this  money, 
you  have  no  recollection  of  putting  anything  in  the  Commonwealth, 
but  you  might  have  done  so? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  gave  $10,000  to  Mr.  West? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  was  Mr.  West’s  relation  to  this  campaign — 
Boy  West,  is  he? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  Boy  O.  West,  of  the  West-Deneen  organization. 
They  are  interested  at  different  times  in  local  politics,  and  are  quite 
active  in  them,  and  I  gave  the  contribution  to  their  fund. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  they  particularly  interested  in  in  this 
campaign? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  even  inquire? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  knew,  at  the  time.  Oh,  they  were  interested  in  the 
county  ticket. 

The  Chairman.  In  the  legislative? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Was  Mr.  Barrett  interested  in  the  legislative 
ticket? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  would  say  not.  I  do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Coming  back  to  this  last  $10,000,  you  think  that 
was  paid  in  your  office? 


20 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


Mr.  Insull.  My  belief  is  that  it  was. 

The  Chairman.  Paid  in  cash? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  that  money  come  from? 

Mr.  Insull.  My  recollection  would  not  be  any  different  on  that 
from  the  others. 

The  Chairman.  That  is,  you  do  not  know  whether  you  took  it 
out  of  the  money  of  the  Commonwealth? 

Mr.  Insull.  The  chances  are  I  did,  yes. 

The  Chairman.  Or  whether  you  took  it  out  of  your  own  private 
funds. 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  not  at  the  moment. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  have  no  recollection  whatever  as  to 
whether  you  put  a  cash  slip  into  the  drawer  of  the  Commonwealth? 

Mr.  Insull.  If  I  took  it  out  of  the  Commonwealth,  I  undoubtedly 
put  a  cash  slip  into  the  drawer.  I  might  explain  that  the  subscrip¬ 
tions,  so  far  as  the  Crowe  subscription  and  the  Barrett  subscription 
and  the  West  subscription  were  concerned,  were  all  given  to  the  same 
general  cause,  because  the  Crowe-Barrett  crowd  and  the  West- 
Deneen  organization  were  all  working  together  on  the  county  ticket, 
or  were  said  to  be  working  together  on  the  county  ticket,  in  that 
campaign. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Insull,  what  books  are  kept  by  the  Common¬ 
wealth  Co.  with  relation  to  the  cash?  Do  you  have  a  cash  book? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  oh,  yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  it  cal  ed,  the  cash  book? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  know.  I  do  not  run  the  books. 

The  Chairman.  You  see  them,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  there  would  be  a  cash  book.  Such  transactions 
as  these  with  me  would  be  carried  as  cash  items,  and  when  I  paid  the 
$190,000  back,  they  gave  me  the  slips  representing  it,  some  of  which 
referred  to  this  matter  and  some  to  other  matters. 

The  Chairman.  And  I  suppose  the  company  deposits  its  moneys. 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  my  check  was  deposited  in  their  bank. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  but  I  suppose  the  company  deposits  its  cash 
moneys  in  some  bank,  does  it  not? 

Mr.  Insull.  They  have  a  large  amount  of  cash;  a  very  large 
amount. 

The  Chairman.  Do  they  carry  a  very  large  balance  all  the  time? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  they  carry  large  balances  of  money  all  the  time. 

The  Chairman.  In  cash? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  do  not  know.  I  do  not  know;  I  do  not  mean  the 
totals  of  cash. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  not  want  us  to  understand,  would  you, 
that  they  would  carry  as  much  as  $190,000  over  night  in  cash? 

Mr.  Insull.  No. 

The  Chairman.  In  cash? 

Mr.  Insull.  Well,  that  would  not  be  the  situation.  There  would 
not  be  any  reason  for  that.  Yes;  they  might  do  that.  They  are  a 
concern  whose  receipts  are  so  large  to-day  that  that  would  not  be  a 
large  amount  to  carry  over  night. 

The  Chairman.  Do  they  carry  right  along  items  as  cash  aggregat¬ 
ing  $190,000,  and  just  carry  the  cash  in  the  drawer,  and  not  show  it 
on  the  books  at  all? 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


21 


Mr.  Insull.  That  might  be. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  the  cash  here? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  How  did  you  get  your  cash — by  counting  these 
cash  items  as  cash? 

Mr.  Insull.  As  cash;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  Who  is  the  man  who  kept  the  cash  accounts  and 
bank  accounts  at  the  time  we  are  speaking  of? 

Mr.  Insull.  The  vice  president  in  charge  of  finances  is  Mr.  E.  J. 
Doyle.  The  vice  president  in  charge  of  accounts  is  Mr.  John  H. 
Gulick. 

The  Chairman.  Do  those  men  have  personal  charge  of  the  books? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Or  have  they  just  supervisory  charge? 

Mr.  Insull.  All  the  people  who  work  on  the  books  report  to  them. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  have  a  cash  book,  and  you  do  have  a  book 
showing  your  bank  deposits,  too? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  yes. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  that  called? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  would  not  know  the  technical  name,  it  is  sollong 
since  I  kept  a  set  of  books  myself. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  take  up  these  cash  items  yourself? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  The  slips. 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  How  much  did  they  aggregate? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  took  up  slips  of  $190,000,  and  some  of  those  slips 
referred  to  other  entirely  personal  matters  of  my  own  that  had  no 
relation  to  any  of  this. 

The  Chairman.  No  relation  to  this  at  all? 

Mr.  Insull.  None  whatever. 

The  Chairman.  So  this  check  that  you  presented  us  to  show  the 
reimbursements  to  the  company  of  the  moneys  you  had  drawn  for 
political  purposes,  the  check  being  for  over  $190,000,  after  all  is  not  a 
check  that  represents  a  reimbursement  to  this  company  of  these 
political  moneys? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  that  was  the  only  check  that  I  had. 

The  Chariman.  That  is,  you  brought  us  in  a  check  that  you  drew 
in  favor  of  the - - 

Mr.  Insull.  Commonwealth  Edison  Co. 

The  Chairman.  Of  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Co.,  for  one  hundred 
and  ninety  thousand  odd  dollars? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  presented  that  to  us  as  representing  your 
return  to  the  company  for  the  moneys  you  had  drawn  for  political 
purposes? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  think  so.  I  did  not  intend  to. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  you  tell  us  that  it  is  a  check  which  might  have 
represented  any  indefinite  amount. 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  no.  The  difference  was  not  of  any  great  con¬ 
sequence.  The  difference  was  $10,000  or  $12,000,  or  something  like 
that. 


22 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


Senator  King.  Do  you  mean  that  $10,000  or  $12,000  is  to  be 
deducted  from  $190,000,  and  the  residue  was  the  amount  required 
to  pay  the  slips  which  you  advanced? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes.  I  paid  them  my  total  slips,  and  it  was  $190,000, 
and  this  part  of  it — I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  $180,000  or  what. 

Senator  La  Follette.  Just  to  refresh  your  recollection,  referring 
to  page  3395  of  the  record - 

Mr.  Insull.  I  have  not  that  page. 

Senator  La  Follette.  Have  you  not  part  6  before  you? 

Mr.  Insull.  No,  part  5. 

Senator  La  Follette.  I  will  read  it.  You  were  reading  from  a 
statement  before  the  committee  on  the  26th  day  of  February,  and  you 
said  [reading]: 

I  have  heretofore  testified  that  I  made  contributions  totaling  $235,925.19  in 
connection  with  the  primary  election  held  in  Illinois  on  April  13,  1926.  Of  this 
sum,  $172,925.19  was  contributed  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  nominations  of 
persons  for  United  States  Senator.  The  remainder,  $65,000,  was  contributed  to 
influence  the  nominations  of  various  persons  for  local  county  offices,  and  I 
firmly  believe  that  it  was  used  exclusively  for  such  purpose. 

Said  sum  of  $172,925.19  was  contributed  during  the  period  of  a  few  months 
preceding  the  primary,  and  all  of  it  was  borrowed  by  me  from  the  Common¬ 
wealth  Edison  Co.,  pending  reimbursement  of  the  company  from  my  own  funds 
as  soon  as  I  could  conveniently  arrange  for  it. 

Then  you  go  on  to  say: 

All  of  the  $65,000  contributed  to  influence  the  nominations  for  local  offices  in 
Cook  County  was  furnished  by  me,  partly  from  my  own  funds  and  partly  from 
money  which  I  borrowed  at  the  time  and  have  since  repaid. 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

Senator  La  Follette.  I  read  that  statement  in  order  to  refresh 
your  memory.  $172,925.19  was  borrowed  from  the  Commonwealth 
Edison  Co.? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

Senator  La  Follette.  And  a  part  of  this  $65,000  was  also  bor¬ 
rowed  from  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Co.,  was  it  not? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  think  so. 

Senator  La  Follette.  You  stated  here — 

was  furnished  by  me  partly  from  my  own  funds  and  partly  from  money  which 
I  borrowed  at  the  time  and  have  since  repaid. 

Mr.  Insull.  I  think  that  is  safe  to  say. 

Senator  La  Follette.  You  do  not  desire  to  change  that  answer 
made  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Insull.  No. 

Senator  La  Follette.  Can  you  tell  us  what  part  of  that  $.65,000 
or  approximately  what  part  of  it,  was  borrowed  from  the  Common¬ 
wealth  Edison  Co.? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  could  not  tell  you  that. 

Senator  La  Follette.  Have  you  any  records  which  would  show? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  have  not.  I  am  confident  that  about  $17,000 
was. 

The  Chairman.  What — borrowed? 

Senator  La  Follette.  Borrowed  from  the  Commonwealth? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

Senator  La  Follette.  Will  you  explain  to  the  committee  just  how 
you  proceed  to  get  money  from  the  Commonwealth  Co.  for  this  pur¬ 
pose?  Do  you  have  a  regular  form  or  si  p? 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


23 


Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  just  sign  a  slip  for  it. 

vSenator  La  Follette.  You  sign  a  slip? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes,  printed  slip. 

Senator  La  Follette.  What  do  you  do  with  the  slip  after  you  sign 
it? 

Air.  Insull.  After  I  sign  it,  I  leave  that  with  the  vice  president  in 
charge  of  finances. 

Senator  La  Follette.  Does  he  then  deliver  the  money? 

Mr.  Insull.  If  I  want  the  money,  he  gets  the  money  for  me. 

Senator  La  Follette.  When  you  reimbursed  the  company  for 
these  moneys  which  you  had  borrowed  from  it,  did  he  return  to  you 
the  slips? 

Air.  Insull.  He  returned  me  the  slips,  and  I  tore  them  up. 

Senator  La  Follette.  Those  slips  are  no  longer  in  your  possession? 

Mr.  Insull.  No,  just  as  if  you  give  your  I  O  U  for  anything, 
and  you  pay  it,  you  naturally  tear  it  up. 

Senator  La  Follette.  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  giving  my  I  O  U’s, 
so  I  do  not  know  what  the  general  procedure  in  regard  to  that  is. 

Mr.  Insull.  Men  who  do. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Insull,  you  told  us  that  you  gave  the  Com¬ 
monwealth  Co.  your  personal  check  for  $190,000. 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  said  that  of  the  $65,000,  part  of  it  was 
furnished  by  your  own  funds  and  partly  from  money  borrowed  from 
time  to  time.  You  meant  from  the  Commonwealth,  did  you  not? 
You  did  not  borrow  it  from  any  other  place? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  yes;  I  would  borrow  lots  of  money  myself. 

The  Chairman.  I  mean  this  $17,000.  You  borrowed  that  from 
the  Commonwealth? 

Air.  Insull.  I  think  so.  The  chances  are  I  did.  I  have  not  any 
distinct  recollection  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  That  makes  in  round  numbers  the  $190,000. 
$172,925.19  plus  $17,000 — you  said  about  $17,000 — I  take  it  those 
two  items  made  up  the  $190,000,  did  they  not? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  could  not  be  sure  of  that. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  your  best  judgment  about  that  now — 
your  best  recollection? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  would  not  give  you  recollection,  because  I  have  not 
a  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  All  right. 

Mr.  Insull.  I  think  the  chances  are  I  may  have  gotten  it — it  may 
have  been  there.  When  I  refer  to  borrowings,  of  course,  I  refer  not 
only  to  borrowings  of  that  character,  but  I  frequently  need  money 
and  have  not  enough  and  have  to  go  and  borrow  it,  and  I  go  to  my 
bank  and  borrow  it. 

The  Chairman.  Let  us  see  if  we  can  not  get  a  little  light  on  this 
thing.  Let  us  go  back  and  read.  I  am  reading  from  page  3395. 
You  read  a  written  statement  at  the  top  of  page  3395,  and  said 
[reading] : 

I  have  heretofore  testified  that  I  made  contributions  totaling  $237,925.19  in 
connection  with  the  primary  election  held  in  Illinois  on  April  13,  1926.  Of  this 
sum,  $172,925.19  was  contributed  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  nominations  of 
persons  for  United  States  Senator.  The  remainder,  $65,000,  was  contributed  to 
influence  the  nominations  of  various  persons  for  various  local  county  offices,  and 
I  firmly  believe  that  it  was  used  exclusively  for  such  purpose. 


24 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


Said  sum  of  $172,925.19  was  contributed  during  the  period  of  a  few  months 
preceding  the  primary,  and  all  of  it  was  borrowed  by  me  from  Commonwealth 
Edison  Co.,  pending  reimbursement  of  the  company  from  my  own  funds  as  soon 
as  I  could  conveniently  arrange  for  it. 

I  was  absent  from  the  State  of  Illinois,  on  a  trip  to  Europe,  from  about  March 
17  until  May  12,  1926.  On  June  30,  1926,  I  gave  the  Commonwealth  Edison 
Co.  my  personal  check  for  $190,000  to  repay  said  amount  of  $172,925.19,  which 
I  had  so  borrowed,  together  with  other  items  of  indebtedness  owing  from  me  to  the 
company.  This  check  was  on  the  Illinois  Merchants  Trust  Co.,  of  Chicago,  and 
I  now  tender  the  check  to  the  committee  for  its  inspection. 

All  of  the  $65,000  contributed  to  influence  the  nominations  for  local  offices  in 
Cook  County  was  furnished  by  me,  partly  from  my  own  funds  and  partly  from 
money  which  I  borrowed  at  the  time  and  have  since  repaid. 

The  Chairman.  Your  last  sentence  in  that  statement  ends,  “partly  from  my 
own  funds  and  partly  from  money  which  I  borrowed  at  the  time  and  have  since 
repaid.”  Did  you  get  that  also  from  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Co.? 

Mr.  Porter.  I  advise  the  witness  not  to  answer. 

The  Chairman.  Your  counsel  has  stated  that  he  advises  you  not  to  answer  the 
last  question  I  asked.  Do  you  refuse  to  answer? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  refuse  to  answer,  on  the  advice  of  counsel. 

I  am  now  going  to  propound  to  you  the  question  which  you  re¬ 
fused  to  answer  before,  namely  [reading] : 

Your  last  sentence  in  that  statement  ends,  “partly  from  my  own  funds  and 
partly  from  money  which  I  borrowed  at  the  time  and  have  since  repaid.”  Did 
you  get  that  also  from  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Co.? 

Mr.  Insull.  Only  a  small  portion  of  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  portion  of  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  know  exactly;  somewhere  between  $10,000 
and  $18,000. 

The  Chairman.  Ten  thousand  and  eighteen  thousand? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  If  you  got  $18,000,  that  would  make  up  the 
$190,000,  added  to  the  $172,000,  would  it  not? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  but  there  were  some  items  in  that  $190,000  that 
were  not  of  that  character. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  the  items  in  that  $190,000  that  were 
not  of  that  character? 

Mr.  Insull.  That  I  do  not  remember. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  have  already  said  that  you  got  $172,925.19 
of  the  $190,000  from  the  Commonwealth  Co. 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  you  got  from  $10,000  to  $18,000  in 
addition.  If  you  got  $18,000,  that  comprises  the  whole  $190,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Then  how  could  there  have  been  other  items? 

Mr.  Insull.  The  other  items  would  have  been  little  things  that 
the  office  pays  out  for  me  from  time  to  time,  and  I  reimburse  them 
from  time  to  time. 

The  Chairman.  Substantially  the  whole  of  that  $190,000  check 
was  for  moneys  that  you  had  borrowed  from  the  Commonwealth 
Co.  Is  not  that  true? 

Mr.  Insull.  Certainly,  within  a  few  thousand  dollars;  yes.  I 
could  not  say  positively  the  amount,  but  certainly  within  a  few 
thousand  dollars. 

The  Chairman.  Was  there  a  legislature  being  nominated  and 
elected  at  this  same  election? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  really  do  not  know. 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  25 

The  Chairman.  It  was  the  nomination  for  the  regular  fall  election, 
was  it  not? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  but  I  know  nothing  about  the  legislature. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  elect  the  members  of  your  legislature  in 
Illinois  every  two  years,  do  you? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  really  do  not  know  whether  there  were  any 
men  running  for  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Insull.  Of  course  they  were  running,  but  I  knew  nothing 
whatever  about  the  legislature. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  attend  to  the  details,  anyway? 

Mr.  Insull.  Well,  but  I  did  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  I  suppose  Crowe  and  Savage  and  Brennan  and 
Barrett  and  West  did  not  know? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  am  not  a  mind  reader.  I  could  not  tell  you  whether 
they  did  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  conversation  with  any  person 
in  regard  to  this  contribution  that  you  made  to  Mr.  Francis  of 
$20,000,  except  with  Mr.  Francis? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  did  not  have  any  conversation  with  Francis.  I  had 
my  conversation  with  Mr.  Schuyler. 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Schuyler  transacted  the  business  with  Francis 
and  with  Harding? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  He  did  that  while  you  were  away? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  think  so.  I  do  not  know,  but  I  do  not 
think  so. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  money  paid  by  Schuyler — those  two 
$20,000  items  paid  by  Schuyler  to  these  people — or  was  it  paid  by 
you? 

Mr.  Insull.  Paid  by  Schuyler. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  gave  Schuyler  the  money? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  give  it  to  him  before  you  went  away  or 
after  you  came  back? 

Mr.  Insull.  That  is  my  recollection;  before  I  went  away. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  have  any  authority  to  draw  any  money 
from  the  company  on  your  behalf  while  you  were  away? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  know  that  he  had. 

The  Chairman.  I  mean,  you  had  not  given  him  any  authority  to 
draw  in  37our  name  and  on  your  behalf? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  not  on  any  personal  transactions  of  mine,  not 
that  I  know  of. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  mean  to  include  political  when  you  say 
“  personal”? 

Mr.  Insull.  Mr.  Schuyler  acts  as  one  of  our  counsel,  and  there 
are  lots  of  company  transactions  that  might  take  place - 

The  Chairman.  I  am  not  speaking  of  that.  All  I  want  to  cover 
clearly  is  whether  jmu  gave  him  any  authority  to  draw  any  money 
in  your  name,  to  be  used  for  political  purposes  while  you  were  away, 
or  at  any  other  time. 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  He  would  come  to  me  from  time  to  time  with 
those  things. 


26 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


The  Chairman.  When  you  were  away,  did  he  have  any  authority 
to  draw  money  from  the  company? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  think  so.  Not  for  me,  no. 

The  Chairman.  When  you  were  here  before  and  declined  to  tell 
the  committee  to  whom  you  had  distributed  this  $40,000,  which  you 
now  say  was  $20,000  to  Mr.  Harding  and  $20,000  to  Mr.  Francis, 
did  you  have  any  other  reason  for  that  refusal  than  merely  that  these 
two  gentlemen  had  asked  you  not  to  tell  about  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes.  As  advised  by  counsel,  I  though  it  was  my  con¬ 
stitutional  right  to  refuse,  and  I  still  think  it  my  constitutional  right 
to  refuse;  but  as  a  matter  of  expediency,  to  end  the  situation,  I  asked 
Mr.  Schuyler  to  persuade  those  gentlemen  to  agree  to  my  making 
this  statement. 

||  The  Chairman.  But  you  had  no  other  reason  except  that  you 
wanted  to  enjoy  all  your  constitutional  rights,  and  they  had  asked 
you  not  to  tell? 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  As  I  testified  previously,  any  one  that  I  gave 
money  to,  if  they  would  testify  to  that  effect,  I  would  be  glad  to 
confirm  it. 

The  Chairman.  But  if  they  did  not? 

Mr.  Insull.  If  they  did  not,  I  did  not  feel  called  upon  to  violate 
their  confidence. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  have  any  conversation  with  either 
of  these  gentlemen  with  reference  to  not  telling? 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  Mr.  Schuyler  did . 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Schuyler  did? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes.  That  is,  they  told  Mr.  Schuyler,  so  he  informed 
me,  that  they  did  not  want  their  names  mentioned. 

The  Chairman.  Were  you  informed  what  reason  they  gave  for 
wanting  this  secrecy? 

Mr.  Insull.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Was  either  of  them  a  candidate  for  office? 

Mr.  Insull.  Harding  in  the  1926  spring  primary  was  a  candidate 
for  county  treasurer.  I  do  not  think  Francis  was. 

Senator  King.  Mr.  Insull,  were  you  in  the  habit,  prior  to  this 
political  campaign  of  which  we  have  been  speaking,  of  going  to  the 
Commonwealth  Co.  and  borrowing  of  it  small  amounts  or  large 
amounts? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

Senator  King.  And  depositing  your  I  O  U  or  check  for  the  same? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes,  and  then  clearing  it  off. 

Senator  King.  What  had  been  the  aggregate;  what  had  been  the 
most  you  had  borrowed  at  any  one  time,  say  going  back  five  years 
prior  to  this  period? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  do  not  know. 

Senator  King.  Did  you  ever  borrow  as  much  as  $1,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  yes.  I  am  likely  to  ask  for  that  at  any  time  if  I 
have  not  any  cash. 

Senator  King.  And  how  long  would  the  company  carry  your 
I  O  IPs  or  your  checks  before  you  reimbursed  them? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  no  time  of  any  consequence. 

Senator  King.  Would  it  carry  your  I  O  U  for  as  much  as  $100,000 
for  months  without  asking  you  to  put  up  collateral  or  indemnify 
it  in  some  way  other  than  by  an  I  O  U? 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  27 

Mr.  Insull.  Why,  I  presume  they  would,  because  that  is  not  a 
large  sum  of  money  from  my  point  of  view. 

Senator  King.  Had  you  ever  borrowed  as  much  as  $100,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  Have  I  ever  borrowed  as  much  as  $100,000? 

Senator  King.  No;  from  the  Commonwealth-Edison  Co. 

The  Chairman.  On  a  slip. 

Senator  King.  On  a  slip. 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  presume  I  have,  sir.  In  this  case  I  had 
$190,000. 

Senator  King.  Yes,  I  know;  but  prior  to  this? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  yes;  I  think  so. 

Senator  King.  Have  you  since? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  know  whether  I  have  or  not. 

Senator  King.  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  you  could  go  to  one  of 
the  officers  of  the  company  at  any  time  and  just  give  a  slip  for  as 
much  as  $50,000  or  $100,000  without  having  it  go  through  the  board 
or  being  recorded  in  the  books  of  the  company  as  one  of  its  trans¬ 
actions? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  presume  if  I  asked  them  to  they  would;  yes. 

Senator  King.  I  know,  but  did  you  do  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  would  not  hesitate  to  if  I  had  reason  to. 

Senator  King.  What  is  the  greatest  amount  that  your  books 
would  show  as  cash  on  hand  and  carried  for  a  considerable  period  as 
cash  on  hand  along  in  last  year,  and  year  before,  and  year  before? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  seven  or  eight  or  nine  or  ten  million  dollars. 

Senator  King.  Cash  on  hand  in  the  tills  of  the  company — not  in 
the  banks? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  do  not  know,  sir.  I  do  not  know  what  the 
carry-over  is.  You  see,  their  receipts  run — let  me  see:  Their  re¬ 
ceipts  run — oh,  their  cash  transactions  must  run  sixty  or  seventy  or 
seventy-five  millions  a  year. 

Senator  King.  I  know;  but  you  distinguish  between  cash  in  the 
banks  and  cash  in  the  tills  of  the  company,  your  current  cash. 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  well  there  would  be  a  lot  of  money,  because  there 
are  paj^  rolls  in  process  of  payment,  amounts  of  different  heads  of 
departments  who  make  their  disbursements  in  cash.  There  would 
be  quite  a  lot  of  money  all  the  time,  cash  items. 

Senator  King.  Do  you  not  aim  to  deposit  your  cash  in  the  bank 
rather  than  keep  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  or  very  large  sums 
in  currency? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  certainly;  but  you  can  not  deposit  money  after 
the  bank  closes,  you  know. 

Senator  King.  No. 

Mr.  Insull.  Their  cash  receipts  are  very  large. 

Senator  King.  What  I  am  trying  to  get  at  is,  and  if  you  can  answer 
it  categorically  I  will  leave  it  in  a  moment — 

Mr.  Insull.  I  want  to  answer  it  if  I  understand  it. 

Senator  King.  Is  it  a  fact  that  your  books,  the  books  of  the  com¬ 
pany,  would  show  that  from  day  to  day  there  are  in  the  tills  of  the 
company  or  in  the  vaults  of  the  company  or  there  is  in  the  com¬ 
pany’s  office  cash  to  the  amount  of  ten,  twenty,  thirty,  forty,  fifty, 
one  hundred,  or  two  hundred  thousand  dollars  or  more? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  can  not  see  how  they  could  run  their  business 
without  that. 


28 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


Senator  King.  I  did  not  ask  you  that. 

Mr.  Insull.  I  did  not  follow  those  items,  but  I  can  not  see  how 
it  is  possible  to  run  a  business  of  that  magnitude  without  having  it. 

Senator  King.  Then  do  you  say  their  books  would  show  that 
they  did  have  cash  there  in  the  offices  of  a  considerable  amount — 
one  hundred,  two  or  three  hundred  thousand  dollars? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  yes.  That  would  not  be  a  large  amount,  I 
should  not  think. 

Senator  King.  And  you  were  in  the  habit  of  going  there  and,  just 
by  giving  your  I  O  U,  borrowing  as  much  as  fifty  or  one  hundred 
or  one  hundred  and  fifty  or  two  hundred  thousand  dollars? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  no,  sir;  they  might  accumulate,  but  I  would 
not  think  of  borrowing  any  such  amounts  as  that.  I  might  go  and 
get  just  the  amount  I  have  testified  to,  but  that  would  not  be  done 
in  any  $200,000  transactions. 

Senator  King.  Here  is  $190,000. 

Mr.  Insull.  Over  a  period. 

Senator  King.  Before  you  gave  this  check  for  $190,000  to  reim¬ 
burse  the  company  for  money  which  you  had  borrowed,  had  your 
attention  been  called  to  the  very  large  borrowings? 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  I  thought  it  was  about  time  I  cleaned  up. 

Senator  King.  And  no  one  in  the  company  had  told  you  that  you 
ought  to  pa}7  it? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  the  vice  president  in  charge  of  finances  had  shown 
me  about  what  it  was,  how  it  was  running,  and  I  told  him  I  thought 
I  had  better  clean  it  up. 

Senator  King.  Would  there  be  anything  in  the  books  of  the  com¬ 
pany  to  indicate  that  you  had  there  an  I  O  U  for  an  aggregate  of 
$190,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  think  it  would  be  in  memorandum  form.  It  would 
have  to  be  in  form  that  would  be  submitted  to  the  auditors.  The 
public  auditors  audit  the  books  once  a  month,  and  they  would  have 
to  show  cash  or  the  equivalent  of  cash;  and— excuse  me  for  saying 
so — but  they  would  consider  my  I  O  U  for  $190,000  equivalent  to 
cash. 

Senator  King.  What  was  the  form  of  the  slips  or  I  O  U’s  that  you 
gave,  that  you  were  in  the  habit  of  giving? 

Mr.  Insull.  Sometimes  it  would  be  just  on  a  plain  piece  of  paper; 
sometimes  it  would  be  on  what  is  called  an  expense  slip. 

Senator  King.  Would  it  be  the  usual,  common  letters  “I  O  U”? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

Senator  King.  Then  “ Samuel  Insull”? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

Senator  King.  Or  a  formal  note:  “For  value  received  I  hereby 
promise  to  pay  to  the  Commonwealth  Co.  $50,000”? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  probably  not  a  formal  note;  just  an  I  O  U. 

Senator  King.  It  is  not  “probably.”  You  know  whether  you 
borrowed  money. 

Mr.  Insull.  I  have  never  executed  a  note  to  the  Commonwealth 
Edison  Co. 

Senator  King.  You  know  whether  you  have  borrowed  money. 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

Senator  King.  You  know  the  transaction. 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


29 


Senator  King.  Now  I  am  asking  you  what  was  the  form  of  the 
obligation  which  you  gave  to  the  company  to  represent  your  indebted¬ 
ness  to  the  company? 

Mr.  Insull.  Just  an  acknowledgment  of  indebtedness;  either 
“I  O  U  so  much,”  or  “I  0  C.  E.  Co.  so  much,”  or  something  of  that 
kind;  just  a  perfectly  plain — not  a  note  at  all. 

Senator  King.  Can  you  visualize,  now,  any  of  those  slips  of  paper 
that  you  left  there? 

Mr.  Insull.  No. 

Senator  King.  So  that  you  can  testify  just  exactly  their  form? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  testify  that  they  are  in  the 
form  of  I  0  U’s. 

Senator  King.  I  do  not  ask  you  to  be  willing;  I  ask  you  what  the 
fact  is.  That  is  all  I  am  concerned  about,  Mr.  Insull. 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

Senator  King.  Is  it  the  fact  that  it  was  an  I  0  U  or  a  formal  note? 

Mr.  Insull.  No. 

Senator  King.  Or  just  this  informal  way  you  have  described? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  would  say  it  was  an  acknowledgment  of  indebted¬ 
ness  that  was  not  a  formal  note.  I  think  that  covers  it. 

Senator  King.  What  was  the  largest  I  0  U — using  your  expres¬ 
sion — or  informal  obligation  which  you  gave  to  the  company? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  just  do  not  remember,  sir. 

Senator  King.  Was  it  $50,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  might  have  given  $50,000,  but  I  just  do  not 
remember. 

Mr.  King.  Do  you  remember,  when  they  presented  them  to  you, 
that  you  totaled  them  and  found  that  it  was  substantially  $190,000? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  totaled  them  up  and  looked  them  over  and  totaled 
them  up  and  gave  my  check  for  $190,000. 

Senator  King.  Had  you  talked  with  one  of  the  vice  presidents  as 
to  what  contribution  the  Commonwealth  Co.  would  make  to  the 
campaign? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  no;  no.  I  told  them  that  I  intended  to — that 
it  was  my  own  personal  contributions. 

Senator  King.  Did  you  not  regard  that  as  rather  strange — your 
going  away  to  Europe  (there  are  casualties  that  come  to  us  in  life) 
with  all  those  large  I  O  IPs  there  for  political  purposes,  and  no 
arrangement  to  meet  them? 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  The  man  whom  I  got  the  money  from  could 
draw  my  own  check  in  reimbursement  at  any  moment  he  wanted  to, 
and  if  he  had  not  got  the  money  in  my  bank  account  to  pay  it  he 
could  go  and  borrow  money  on  my  securities  and  pay  it.  He  holds 
my  power  of  attorney. 

Senator  King.  Did  you  authorize  him  to  borrow  for  you  during 
your  absence? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  no;  I  never  have  to  authorize  him.  My  business 
goes  on  just  the  same  whether  I  am  there  or  not. 

Senator  King.  I  mean,  did  he  borrow  at  any  time  for  you  during 
your  absence  from  Chicago? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  would  be  very  much  surprised  if  he  did  not.  I  do 
not  know  just  at  this  time.  I  would  be  very  much  surprised  if  he 
did  not. 


30 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


The  Chairman.  Who  was  that  man? 

Mr.  Insull.  E.  J.  Doyle.  I  testified  that  he  was  the  vice  president 
in  charge  of  finances  of  the  Edison  Co. 

The  Chairman.  Is  he  here? 

Mr.  Insull.  No.  He,  with  my  son,  holds  my  power  of  attorney. 

Senator  King.  Mr.  Insull,  was  there  any  meeting  at  any  time  of 
the  finance  committee,  of  the  executive  committee,  or  of  the  board 
of  directors  of  either  of  your  companies  at  which  the  question  was 
discussed  of  the  candidacy  of  Mr.  Smith  or  of  Mr.  McKinley? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  except  as  a  man  interested  in  politics  might  ask 
me  a  question  when  he  was  coming  in  the  office  to  attend  a  meeting, 
or  I  might  ask  him  a  question. 

Senator  King.  Of  course  I  exclude  those  casual  observations. 

Mr.  Insull.  No,  no — oh,  no — no. 

Senator  King.  Was  it  the  subject  of  consideration  by  either  of 
your  subcommittees? 

Mr.  Insull.  No. 

Senator  King.  Or  your  committee  generally? 

Mr.  Insull.  No. 

Senator  King.  As  to  what  contribution  should  be  made  by  the 
Commonwealth  or  any  of  the  corporations  with  which  you  are 
identified? 

Mr.  Insull.  No. 

Senator  King.  Toward  the  campaign  of  Mr.  Smith  or  Mr. 
McKinley  or  any  other  person? 

Mr.  Insull.  No. 

Senator  King.  Why  did  you  not,  before  going  to  Europe,  take  up 
these  I  O  U’s  instead  of  carrying  such  a  large  indebtedness  there  for 
a  political  purpose,  and  thus  to  an  outsider-  putting  the  corporation 
in  the  attitude  of  being  a  contributor  to  a  political  campaign? 

Mr.  Insull.  Well,  I  suppose  if  it  had  occurred  to  me  that  such 
would  be  the  criticism  I  would  have  taken  them  up.  The  best 
evidence  that  such  thing  never  occurred  to  me  that  was  I  left  them 
there. 

The  Chairman.  There  was  not  any  trouble  raised  about  it  until 
this  investigation  started. 

Mr.  Insull.  Well,  that  had  not  anything  to  do  with  it. 

Senator  King.  Mr.  Insull,  referring  to  these  obligations  totaling 
$190,000,  did  you  pay  any  interest  to  the  company  upon  the  same? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  do  not  think  I  have. 

Senator  King.  You  had  the  use  of  that  money? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

Senator  King.  For  a  considerable  period? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

Senator  King.  And  you  paid  no  interest  to  the  corporation? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  do  a  great  many  things  for  the  corporation 
that  I  do  not  make  any  charge  for  of  any  kind  whatsoever.  I  take 
a  great  many  risks;  I  have,  in  my  day. 

The  Chairman.  One  question  furthei :  You  say  that  the  public 
auditors  of  Illinois  once  a  month  audit  the  books  of  that  company? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  did  not;  I  said  that  a  public  auditor  audited 
the  books. 

The  Chairman.  Oh. 

Mr.  Insull.  “Chartered  accountant7’  is  the  correct  term. 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


31 


The  Chairman.  I  understand.  You  used  the  other  phraseology, 
I  thought.  All  right.  Who  was  the  chartered  accountant  who 
examined  the  books? 

Mr.  Insull.  Arthur  Young  &  Co. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know-  whether  they  retain  a  record  of 
examinations? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  do  not  know.  All  I  see  is  their  report. 

The  Chairman.  Do  they  file  their  report  with  your  company? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  they  file  a  report  annually  of  the  business. 

The  Chairman.  Are  they  itemized  statements,  or  mere  generaliza¬ 
tions? 

Mr.  Insull.  Generalization  statements.  They  file  a  report 
annually. 

The  Chairman.  That  simply  contains  the  gross  items? 

Mr.  Insull.  But  their  work  goes  on,  the  work  of  their  subordi¬ 
nates,  practically  every  month  of  the  year. 

The  Chairman.  There  is  nothing  in  their  report  that  they  file  with 
you  that  shows  these  transactions;  is  there? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  think  they  would. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  a  copy  of  that  report? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  could  send  you  a  copy  of  the  annual  report. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  do  that? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  shall  be  very  glad  to. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well. 

Now-,  one  further  question:  Did  you  say  that  Mr.  Francis  was 
connected  with  the  Lundin  organization? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  said  the  Small-Lundin  organization. 

The  Chairman.  The  Small-Lundin  organization — very  well.  You 
know  Mr.  Lundin? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  I  know  him.  Yes;  I  know  Mr.  Lundin. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  him  quite  well,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  know  him  very  well.  I  have  not  seen  him  in  a  long 
time. 

The  Chairman.  Was  Mr.  Lundin  taking  any  part  in  this  campaign? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  was  just  trying  to  recall  whether  he  was  in  Europe 
at  that  time.  Knowing  his  habits,  if  he  was  home  at  that  time  he 
certainly  took  part  in  the  campaign.  [Laughter.] 

The  Chairman.  He  did  not  stay  in  Europe  all  summer,  anyway, 
if  he  was  there  at  all ;  did  he? 

Mr.  Insull.  My  recollection  is  that  I  did  not  see  him  after  the 
primary  campaign  got  started.  I  think  I  saw-  him  once  in  the  previous 
fall.  I  am  not  sure. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  some  talk  with  him  then  about 
politics? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  except  of  the  most  general  character.  I  just 
happened  to  meet  him  somewhere. 

The  Chairman.  What  were  Mr.  Francis's  relations  with  Mr. 
Lundin?  What  was  their  connection? 

Mr.  Insull.  Very  close,  but  exactly  what  I  do  not  know,  Mr. 
Senator,  except  that  I  think  Francis  had  charge  of  the  publicity  part 
of  the  wrork. 

The  Chairman.  For  the  Small-Lundin  organization? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  think  so.  That  is  my  impression. 


32 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


The  Chairman.  You  know,  do  you  not,  that  the  Small-Lundin 
organization  were  active  in  this  primary  and  in  the  campaign  that 
followed? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  yes.  The  organization  was  undoubtedly  active. 

The  Chairman.  And  when  you  gave  this  money  to  Mr.  Francis 
you  understood  that  it  was  going  to  the  Small-Lundin  faction? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  when  I  gave  it  to  Mr.  Schuyler  to  give  to  Mr. 
Francis.  Yes;  that  is  what  I  understood. 

The  Chairman.  And  whom  was  the  Small-Lundin  faction  sup¬ 
porting  for  Senator? 

Mr.  Insull.  Well,  I  used  to  wonder. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  not  aiming  to  contribute  any  money 
to  go  to  the  benefit  of  McKinley,  were  you? 

Mr.  Insull.  Hardly;  but  I  used  to  wonder  who  they  were  sup¬ 
porting,  sometimes. 

The  Chairman.  Will  you  give  us  your  understanding? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  think  officially  they  were  supporting  Smith,  but 
I  am  not  sure  of  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  mean  there  mav  have  been  some  defection 
in  their  ranks,  but  that  officially  you  understood  they  were  for  Mr. 
Smith? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  think  so,  but  I  differentiate  there  between — I  would 
say  the  Lundin  faction;  I  think  so,  but  without  attempting  to  be 
facetious,  I  should  like  to  qualify  that  by  saying  I  am  not  at  all 
sure. 

The  Chairman.  You  just  mentioned  the  Lundin  faction.  Did  you 
mean  to  distinguish  between  the  Small-Lundin  faction  and  Lundin  in 
this  latter  instance? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes.  I  have  always  assumed  that  Governor  Small 
supported  the  Smith  candidacy.  You  have  got  to  differentiate 
between  local  county  politics - 

The  Chairman.  If  I  understand  you,  then,  you  spoke  a  while  ago 
of  the  Small-Lundin  faction  or  organization? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  did  that  because  that  is  what  it  was  known  as. 

The  Chairman.  Yes;  and  you  gave  this  money  to  Mr.  Francis, 
whom  you  spoke  of  as  belonging  to  that  Small-Lundin  organization? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  want  us  to  understand  that  Mr.  Francis 
more  particularly  represented  the  Lundin  part  of  the  Small-Lundin 
organization? 

Mr.  Insull.  That  is  my  impression. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  think,  or  you  understood,  and  you  still 
think,  that  the  Small  part,  the  Governor  Small  part  of  that  organiza¬ 
tion,  if  we  may  so  describe  it,  was  in  good  faith  for  Smith? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  think  so.  I  am  sure — I  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  are  not  so  certain  what  Lundin  was  for? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  am  not  posted.  I  do  not  know.  I  was  not  inter¬ 
ested. 

The  Chairman.  I  say,  you  are  uncertain  about  what  Lundin 
did. 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes.  I  was  not  contributing  to  Francis  on  anything 
except  local  matters. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  what  Francis  did  with  this 
money? 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  33 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it.  I  do  not  know 
whether  Mr.  Schuyler  does,  but  I  do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  Now,  Mr.  Harding.  Was  he  con¬ 
nected  with  any  faction,  except — I  believe  you  did  say  he  was  con¬ 
nected  with - 

Mr.  Insull.  He  kind  of  runs  a  show  of  his  own  on  the  south  side, 
but  as  a  rule  he  works  with  Mayor  Thompson. 

The  Chairman.  In  this  battle  that  you  were  having  there  over 
Senator,  whom  did  Harding  support? 

Mr.  Insull.  Well,  I  really  do  not  know.  I  think — it  is  a  surmise 
on  my  part — I  think  Smith,  but  I  really  do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Now,  Harding  has  an  organization  embracing 
how  much  of  the  city  of  Chicago? 

Mr.  Insull.  Quite  some  of  the  southside  wards. 

The  Chairman.  Several  of  the  southside  wards? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  quite  some. 

The  Chairman.  He  is  an  important  man  in  the  politics  of  Chicago? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  your  understanding  was  that  he  was  support¬ 
ing  Mr.  Smith,  and  he  also  was  supporting  local  candidates? 

Mr.  Insull.  All  the  local  people  were  practically  working  together 
on  the  Republican  side. 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  They  had  an  organization,  and  when  the}7 
had  an  organization  they  generally  had  a  slate? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  they  worked  for  the  whole  crowd  together 
that  was  on  the  slate? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Harding  at  that  time  was  himself  a  candidate? 

Mr.  Insull.  A  candidate  for  county  treasurer. 

The  Chairman.  Was  he  nominated? 

Mr.  Insull.  He  was  nominated,  and  he  was  elected  ;  and  I  do  not 
know  whether  it  is  still  going  on,  but  for  some  time  his  Democratic 
opponent  wTas  trying  to  get  him - 

The  Chairman.  Contesting? 

Mr.  Insull.  Contesting.  I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  still  going 
on  or  not. 

Senator  La  Follette.  Do  you  know  whether  Mr.  Francis  holds 
any  public  office  or  not? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  do  not  think  he  did  at  that  time.  I  think  he  does 
now. 

Senator  La  Follette.  Do  you  know  what  office  he  holds? 

Mr.  Insull.  Something  in  the  tax  department;  I  do  not  know 
what. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  other  questions,  gentlemen? 

Senator  King.  Did  you  intend  that  any  part  of  this  $40,000  should 
be  used  for  senatorial  purposes? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  none  whatever.  I  do  not  believe  a  penny  of  it 
was  used  for  that  purpose.  I  do  not  believe  a  penny  of  my  local 
contribution  was  used  for  senatorial  purposes. 

Senator  King.  You  think  it  was  used  just  in  the  city  alone? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  I  think  that - 

Senator  King.  In  Cook  County? 


S.  Kept.  603,  pt  2 - 3 


34 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


Mr.  Insull.  In  Cook  County.  I  think  that  is  the  general  practice. 

Senator  King.  Were  you  so  much  interested  in  your  local  Cook 
County  candidates  as  to  contribute  those  huge  sums — $40,000, 
$10,000,  and  various  other  sums? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  I  was  interested. 

Senator  King.  May  I  ask,  without  being  impertinent,  why  you 
were  so  much  interested  in  the  Cook  County  campaign? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  always  have  been.  I  have  always  taken  more 
or  less  part  in  it.  Quite  a  number  of  the  people  active  in  political 
life  are  intimate  friends  of  mine.  I  like  the  game.  I  take  an  inter¬ 
est  in  it.  I  did  not  become  a  United  States  citizen  just  to  sit  down 
and  say  nothing.  I  come  of  a  people  who  usually  take  part  in  politics. 

Senator  King.  Did  you  take  such  an  active  interest  in  former 
campaigns? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes;  yes.  I  can  remember  the  day  when  I  sup¬ 
ported  the  gold  Democratic  movement  in  Chicago,  when  Roger 
Sullivan  and  John  Hopkins  and  Stuyve  Peabody  could  not  afford 
to  put  any  more  money  up. 

Senator  King.  Did  you  make  as  large  contributions  then? 

Mr.  Insull.  In  proportion  to  what  I  was  worth  at  that  time  I 
contributed  more,  because  I  thought  the  duty  was  greater;  and  that 
was  the  time  when  I  had  only  just  become  an  American  citizen. 

Senator  King.  Were  you  interested  in  the  question  of  local  taxes 
in  Cook  County? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  no.  We  always  pay  the  highest  taxes  that  are 
paid  by  anybody  in  the  county. 

Senator  King.  Would  any  of  those  officials - 

Mr.  Insull.  We  run  our  business  that  way,  and  are  glad  to. 
It  does  not  make  any  difference  to  us.  The  customers  pay  for  it, 
and  we  never  get  into  trouble  on  our  taxes. 

Senator  King.  You  pass  on  the  obligation? 

Mr.  Insull.  Why,  certainly.  That  is  the  way  we  run  our  business. 

Senator  King.  There  were  persons  elected  in  that  contest  who  would 
fix  the  taxes  upon  the  public  utilities,  were  there  not? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  undoubtedly:  but  the  public  utilities  are  owned 
by  40,000  stockholders - 

Senator  King.  Yes;  I  have  seen  your  report. 

Mr.  Insull.  Of  whom  I  am  one,  and  I  put  up  $237,000  in  this 
whole  campaign.  Would  I  put  that  up  to  influence  the  taxes  for  a 
corporation?  I  did  it  because  of  some  reasons  that  I  have  not  told 
you  and  do  not  intend  to  tell  you,  because  it  involves  a  dead  man, 
and  other  reasons,  because  I  am  very  much  interested  in  politics 
generally. 

The  Chairman.  You  said  a  minute  ago,  Mr.  Insull,  that  not  a 
dollar  of  this  money  you  gave  went  into  the  senatorial  campaign. 
You  do  not  mean  to  change  your  statement  that  there  were  groups 
of  candidates  being  run,  and  that  one  of  that  group  was  the  United 
States  Senator? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  no;  no. 

The  Chairman.  He  got  the  benefit  along  with  the  rest  of  them? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  that  is  the  theory  on  which  you  have  asked  me 
to  give  you  information  on  a  subject  that  I  consider  it  is  my  right  to 
refuse,  and  I  have  answered  all  your  questions;  but  that  is  your 
theory.  That  is  not  my  theory. 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  35 


The  Chairman.  Very  well.  Unfortunately,  you  have  to  proceed 
on  our  theory. 

Mr.  Insull.  Unfortunately. 

The  Chairman.  What  had  been  Francis’s  relations  with  Lundin? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  not  know? 

Mr.  Insull.  No;  I  do  not  know.  I  do  not  know.  Oh,  of  course 
I  have  met  Francis,  but  I  do  not  really  know  him. 

The  Chairman.  If  I  understand  you,  now,  you  did  not  know  who 
was  running  for  the  local  offices  at  all? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  did  at  the  time,  undoubtedly. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  know  who  was  running  for  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Insull.  Oh,  I  was  not  interested  in  who  was  running  for  the 
legislature. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  were  not  interested  in  these  other  offices? 

Mr.  Insull.  Not  particularly;  not  particularly. 

The  Chairman.  You  gave  the  $20,000  just  from  love  of  the  game? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  gave  that  to  the  organization,  to  help  support  the 
organization.  I  have  given  subscriptions  before  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  friendly  to  a  certain  organization? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  they  were  friendly  to  you,  and  so  you  helped 
them  out  financially? 

Mr.  Insull.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  not  individually  asking  for  any  favors, 
were  you? 

Mr.  Insull.  I  am  not  aware  of  any. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  that  is  all  I  care  to  ask.  Now,  we  will 
hear  Mr.  Schuyler,  and  see  if  we  can  not  get  through  with  this  phase 
of  the  matter  before  our  noon  adjournment. 

(By  direction  of  the  chairman,  the  following  correspondence  is 
here  inserted  in  the  record:) 

Chicago,  III.,  October  27,  1927. 


Senator  James  A.  Reed, 

Kansas  City,  Mo. 

Dear  Senator:  As  chairman  of  the  special  committee  appointed  by  Senate 
Resolution  195,  you  will  recall  that  Mr.  Schuyler  refused  to  testify  as  to  the 
distribution  of  $40,000  contributed  by  Mr.  Insull  (through  Mr.  Schuyler)  to  the 
local  campaign  preceding  the  Illinois  primary  of  April,  1926,  Mr.  Insull  is  now 
willing  that  Mr.  Schuyler  should  fully  inform  the  committee  with  respect  to  the 
distribution  of  that  money. 

I  therefore  write  to  ask  whether  it  would  be  agreeable  to  you  to  call  a  meeting 
of  the  committee  at  an  early  date  to  receive  this  testimony.  I  hope  this  can  be 
arranged. 

Will  you  kindly  let  me  hear  from  you? 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

Gilbert  E.  Porter. 


Kansas  City,  Mo.,  November  1,  1927. 

Hon.  Gilbert  E.  Porter, 

Chicago,  III. 

My  Dear  Mr.  Porter:  I  have  your  letter  of  October  27.  I  shall  be  glad  to 
lay  it  before  the  special  committee  of  the  Senate  when  the  committee  can  be 
convened.  I  am  unable  to  state  when  that  can  be  done,  but  I  assume  that  a 
meeting  will  be  held  shortly  after  the  various  members  arrive  in  Washington, 
which,  I  think,  will  be  in  the  early  part  of  the  present  month. 

Very  truly, 


James  A.  Reed,  Chairman. 


36 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


Chicago,  November  18,  1927. 

Dear  Sir:  In  the  early  part  of  this  year  I  appeared  as  a  witness  before  your 
committee  and  refused  to  answer  certain  questions  concerning  the  distribution 
of  $40,000  given  to  me  by  Samuel  Insull  for  use  in  the  local  campaign  preceding 
the  Illinois  primary  of  April,  1926. 

I  now  desire  to  appear  before  the  committee  and  answer  fully  these  questions, 
and  I  trust  the  committee  will  give  me  an  early  opportunity  to  do  so. 

Yours  very  truly, 

Daniel  J.  Schuyler. 

Senator  James  A.  Reed, 

Chairman  Special  Committee, 

Washington,  D.  C . 


November  21,  1927. 

Hon.  Daniel  J.  Schuyler,  Jr., 

Chicago,  III. 

Sir:  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  November  18,  in  which  you  state  in  sub¬ 
stance  that  you  now  desire  to  appear  before  the  special  committee  of  the  Senate 
to  answer  certain  questions  and  give  certain  information  which  you  refused  at 
previous  hearings  of  the  committee. 

In  reply,  permit  me  to  say  that  wdien  the  committee  convenes  your  letter  will 
be  submitted  to  it  for  its  consideration. 

Sincerely  yours, 


James  A.  Reed,  Chairman. 


December,  17,  1927. 

Hon.  Daniel  J.  Schuyler, 

Chicago,  III.: 

In  accordance  with  your  request,  I  am  authorized  by  the  special  committee 
to  notify  you  that  there  will  be  a  meeting  at  10  o’clock  Saturday,  January  7, 
1928,  at  which  you  may  be  heard.  You  will  also  bring  with  you  any  or  all 
books,  papers,  letters,  checks,  check  books,  and  accounts  relating  to  the  trans¬ 
actions.  This  telegraphic  message  is  sent  you  in  order  to  give  you  the  earliest 
possible  notice.  Please  acknowledge. 

James  A.  Reed,  Chairman. 


Chicago,  III.,  December  19,  1927. 
Senator  James  A.  Reed,  Washington,  D.  C.: 

This  is  to  acknowledge  receipt  of  your  telegram  dated  December  17.  I  shall 
appear  before  your  committee  on  the  morning  of  January  7,  1928,  in  Washington. 

Daniel  J.  Schuyler. 

TESTIMONY  OF  DANIEL  J.  SCHUYLER— Resumed 

The  Chairman.  Mr.  Schuyler,  you  are  the  same  Mr.  Schuyler 
who  appeared  before  the  committee  on  previous  occasions? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  answered  some  questions  and  declined  to 
answer  some  other  questions? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  you  since  that  have  written  a  letter  stating 
that  you  desired  to  testify  further? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes. 

,  The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  Mr.  Charles  F.  Francis? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes;  I  have  known  him  very  well  for  the  last  30 
years. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  his  political  alignment  or  connection? 
Mr.  Schuyler.  Charlie  Francis  has  always  been  a  sort  of  a  free 
lance.  If  he  had  any  political  connections,  I  would  say  they  were 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  37 

with  Small  and  Lundin.  He  holds  an  appointment  under  Governor 
Small  now. 

The  Chairman.  At  the  time  of  the  transactions  we  are  inquiring 
into  here,  did  he  hold  any  political  office? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  do  not  know  whether  he  did  or  not. 

The  Chairman.  What  political  office  does  he  hold  now? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  He  is  a  member  of  the  State  tax  commission. 

The  Chairman.  When  was  he  appointed  to  that  position? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  Can  you  approximate  the  time? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No;  I  really  can  not,  because  I  am  not  interested, 
and  I  have  no  recollection. 

The  Chairman.  It  was  some  time  after  the  primary,  and  after 
these  hearings? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  could  not  say.  He  might  have  been  a  member 
of  the  commission  at  the  time  for  all  I  know. 

The  Chairman.  Are  you  acquainted  with  Mr.  Lundin’s  activities 
in  the  last  primary  in  Illinois? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  do  not  know  that  he  was  active.  I  did  not  ask 
him  about  it.  I  never  had  any  conversations  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  You  were  acquainted  generally  with  what  was 
going  on  there  in  politics? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  What  candidate  was  the  Small-Lundin  organiza¬ 
tion  supporting? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  would  say  that  they  supported  Small,  and  I  am 
quite  sure  that  they  did. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  your  understanding  at  the  time  that 
these  moneys  were  passed? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes,  sir;  although  when  Charlie  Francis  talked  to 
me  about  a  contribution  it  was  on  the  theory  that  he  had  a  candidate 
for  sheriff. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  candidate  was  running  with  a  group  of 
other  men  that  that  same  organization  was  supporting? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  think  so. 

The  Chairman.  And  a  part  of  that  group  was  Mr.  Smith? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  e^r  talk  to  Lundin,  at  any  time,  with 
reference  to  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No;  I  did  not  see  Lundin  at  any  time  during  the 
primary. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  communicate  with  him  in  any  way? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No. 

The  Chairman.  Have  you  talked  to  him  since  the  primary? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes;  I  met  him  on  the  street  once. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  talk  to  him  about  the  campaign? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  have  any  talk  with  him  about  this  con¬ 
tribution? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No;  never  discussed  it  with  him. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  give  Mr.  Francis  $20,000? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  ever  give  him  any  other  moneys? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Do  you  mean  at  any  previous  time? 


38 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


The  Chairman.  Yes,  or  since. 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Not  since;  but  before. 

The  Chairman.  In  this  same  campaign? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Oh,  no;  not  in  this  campaign.  Years  ago. 

The  Chairman.  In  other  campaigns? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes.  Charlie  Francis  is  a  lawyer  there  in  Chicago, 
and  as  a  matter  of  fact  he  was  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  table  in  the 
first  case  that  I  ever  tried.  He  is  about  four  or  five  years  older 
than  I  am. 

The  Chairman.  I  did  not  mean  to  inquire  about  your  contribu¬ 
tions  to  past  campaigns,  but  in  connection  with  this  campaign. 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No,  nothing.  That  was  the  entire  amount. 

The  Chairman.  Where  were  you  when  you  gave  him  this  money? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  in  my  office. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  you  get  the  money  from? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  got  it  from  Mr.  Insull,  personally. 

The  Chairman.  Where  was  he  when  you  got  it? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  At  No.  72  West  Adams  Street. 

The  Chairman.  Is  your  office  near  his? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  His  office  is  at  Clark  and  Adams,  in  the  Illinois 
Merchants  Building,  and  I  am  on  Jackson  Boulevard  and  Clark. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  entirely  separate  from  the  Common¬ 
wealth? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Oh,  I  am  just  one  of  his  attorneys. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  first  speak  to  him  about  the  $20,000,  or 
did  he  speak  to  you? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No,  I  spoke  to  him,  in  both  instances. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  he  get  the  $20,000  that  he  gave  you? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  have  not  the  slightest  idea. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  that  he  handed  it  to  you  in  person? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes,  I  do. 

The  Chairman.  Where  did  he  have  it  at  the  time  he  handed  it  to 
you?  Did  he  have  it  in  his  desk  or  in  his  safe  or  in  his  pocket? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  do  not  know.  He  just  gave  it  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  you  know  that  he  handed  it  to  you? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Had  you  told  him  previous  to  that,  how  much 
you  wanted? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  When  had  you  first  told  him  about  it? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  could  not  tell  you;  some  time  during  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  Some  time  before  you  got  it,  you  told  him? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Had  anyone  else  but  Francis  spoken  to  you  about 
this  money? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Just  Francis,  himself? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  That  is  all. 

The  Chairman.  Who  was  it  he  said  he  was  interested  in? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  think  the  name  was  Graydon.  He  was  running 
for  sheriff.  No,  it  was  not  Graydon.  I  do  not  remember  his  name 
now.  It  was  a  man  who  was  their  candidate  for  sheriff. 

The  Chairman.  You  say  “their.”  Whom  do  you  mean,  the 
Lundin-Small  candidate? 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  39 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  mean  Francis  was  working  along  politically  with 
Small  and  Lundin. 

The  Chairman.  Was  their  man  nominated? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  think  not.  I  could  not  be  sure. 

The  Chairman.  Why  did  Mr.  Insull  have  a  $2(5,000  interest  in 
this  candidate  for  sheriff? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  suppose  for  the  reason  that  he  stated,  Senator, 
that  he  was  interested  in  politics. 

The  Chairman.  But  you  do  not  even  now  know  who  the  man  was, 
do  you?  r  j  ib- 

Mr.  Schuyler.  That  was  running  for  sheriff? 

The  Chairman.  Yes.  •  r  f"  ,  I  ;  . 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No;  that  is  two  years  ago.  v'\ 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  remember  it?  B; 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No,  I  do  not.  r  ~  W\ 

The  Chairman.  A  contribution  of  $20,000  would  not  fix  his  name 
in  your  recollection? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No;  that  did  not  make  a  deep  impression  on  me. 
I  merely  passed  the  money  over  to  Mr.  Francis.  It  was  not  a  thing 
that  would  sink  into  my  memory. 

The  Chairman.  You  are  the  man  who  made  the  arrangement,  in¬ 
stead  of  Mr.  Insull,  are  you  not? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  did;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Very  well.  Do  you  know  what  other  offices  were 
being  run  for  besides  that  of  sheriff,  at  that  time? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  think  all  of  the  county  offices.  I  am  sure  they 
were. 

The  Chairman.  That  includes  members  of  the  legislature? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  the  Small-Lundin  faction  have  some  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  legislature  on  their  ticket? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  presume  they  did.  All  the  other  factions  did. 

The  Chairman.  And  George  T.  Harding? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  George  F.  Harding. 

The  Chairman.  George  F,  Harding;  did  you  give  him  $20,000? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Where? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  That  was  in  my  office,  or  at  his  house,  I  do  not 
recollect  which.  I  remember  I  was  out  to  his  house  for  dinner  once 
during  the  primary. 

The  Chairman.  Did  he  ask  you  to  contribute? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes,  he  did.  George  had  a  very  hard  fight.  \  I 
have  known  him  even  longer  than  I  have  Francis.  I  have  known 
him  ever  since  I  was  12  or  14  years  of  age.  My  father  knew/his 
father.  He  very  seldom  ever  made  suggestions  in  relation  to  con¬ 
tributions;  but  he  had  an  awfully  tough  fight,  and  he  spoke  about  it 
to  me. 

The  Chairman.  Whom  was  he  supporting  for  the  Senate? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  think  he  was  with  Smith;  although  here  is  what 
happened.  Now,  you  will  have  to  use  your  own  judgment  on  that. 
Charlie  Francis  and  George  Harding  both  told  me  that  the  reason 
they  did  not  want  me  to  mention  their  names  and  did  not  want  Mr. 
Insull  to  mention  their  names  at  this  inquiry  was  because  they  were 


40 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


Hot  in  the  senatorial  campaign,  and  had  not  been  interested  in  it, 
and  did  not  want  to  be  mixed  up  in  it. 

The  Chairman.  They  had  Smith’s  name  on  their  slate,  did  they 
not? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  do  not  know  whether  they  did  or  not. 

The  Chairman,  Was  it  not  your  understanding  that  they  had  a 
slate  and  that  they  ran  it  as  a  whole,  which  embraced  county  offices 
and  embraced  nominations  for  the  Senate? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes,  I  think  that  is  true;  but  I  think  George 
Harding,  while  he  might  have  been  for  Smith,  was  infinitely  more 
interested  in  his  candidacy. 

The  Chairman.  Smith  carried  Harding’s  part  of  the  town,  did  he 
not? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  do  not  know.  My  impression  would  be,  if  any 
of  the  wards  on  the  south  side  went  for  McKinley,  it  probably 
would  have  been  some  of  Harding’s  wards,  on  account  of  the  character 
of  the  wards. 

The  Chairman.  You  speak  of  south  side  wards.  Can  you  give 
me  the  names  or  numbers  of  those  wards? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Well,  you  could  say  Nos.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6,  and  7, 
and  maybe  some  others. 

The  Chairman.  That  was  in  the  Harding  district? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Did  his  territory  embrace  more  than  you  have 
named? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes.  He  is  pretty  active  on  the  whole  south  side. 

The  Chairman.  What  took  place  between  you  and  Mr.  Insull 
when  you  got  the  $20,000  for  Harding? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Not  a  thing,  except  he  just  gave  it  to  me. 

The  Chairman.  You  just  went  in  and  told  him  that  you  wanted 
$20,000  for  Harding? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  told  him  I  had  talked  to  George  Harding,  and  I 
recommended  the  contribution,  and  he  said,  all  right;  and  later  on  I 
went  and  got  it. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  before  Mr.  Insull  went  away? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  would  say  it  was,  although  I  could  not  say 
positively. 

The  Chairman.  Did  you  draw  any  money  in  his  name  during  the 
time  he  was  away? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No. 

The  Chairman.  You  did  not  have  access  to  the  till  of  the  Common¬ 
wealth  Co.  during  the  time  he  was  away,  so  that  you  could  get 
money  when  you  needed  it  to  make  these  contributions? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Did  Francis  ever  ask  you  not  to  rell  about  the 
money  you  had  given  him? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  He  did,  when  I  spoke  to  him  about  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  it  you  say  he  said? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  He  said  that  he  had  not  been  interested  in  the 
senatorial  campaign;  was  not  interested  in  it,  and  was  not  interested 
in  who  was  Senator,  and  did  not  want  to  get  mixed  up  in  it  in  any 
way,  shape,  or  manner. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  his  only  reason  for  not  wanting  you  to 
tell  of  it? 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


41 


Mr.  Schuyler.  That  was  the  only  reason. 

The  Chairman.  Was  that  the  only  reason  you  had  for  not  telling 
the  committee  when  you  testified  before? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  had  a  feeling,  Senator,  that  I  had  a  right  not  to 
answer  those  questions.  The  questions  applied  to  nothing  but  a 
strictly  local  campaign.  Those  are  the  only  two  reasons  that  I  know 
anything  about. 

The  Chairman.  Of  course  you  knew,  as  a  lawyer  and  as  a  man  of 
fine  intelligence,  that  if  a  group  of  men  were  running  on  the  same 
slate  together  and  contributions  of  money  were  made  for  any  of  the 
people  on  that  slate,  at  least  some  part  of  that  money  went  to  the 
benefit  of  all  the  candidates? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  That  fine  intelligence  that  you  refer  to  would  lead 
me  to  believe  that  when  a  man  was  a  candidate  himself,  he  would  be 
looking  out  for  himself. 

The  Chairman.  And  if  you  had  a  slate  organized,  and  an  organiza¬ 
tion  back  of  it  and  of  the  candidates,  would  you  say  that  that  would 
not  count  for  any  candidate? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  would  not  say  that,  Senator. 

Senator  King.  Do  you  mean  to  tell  this  committee,  Mr.  Schuyler, 
that  you  would  go  to  your  client,  Mr.  Insull - 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes. 

Senator  King.  On  the  question  of  a  sheriff,  and  ask  him  to  put  up 

$20,000? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Why,  yes. 

Senator  King.  A  man  that  you  have  so  little  interest  in  that  you 
do  not  remember  his  name? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  told  you,  that  is  two  years  ago;  and  undoubtedly 
Krancis  was  interested  in  other  members  of  the  local  slate;  but  he  told 
me  that  it  was  entirely  a  local  proposition,  and  he  was  particularly 
interested  in  the  sheriff,  whoever  he  was. 

Senator  King.  And  you  want  this  committee  to  understand,  then, 
that  you  advised  your  client  to  put  up  $20,000  toward  the  election 
of  a  sheriff,  notwithstanding  that  he  was  on  a  slate - 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  did  not  say  that,  Senator.  I  said  that  the 
sheriff  that  he  was  particularly  interested  in — this  particular  candi¬ 
date — was  a  part  of  the  whole  county  slate.  That  is  what  I  said. 

Senator  King.  Yes;  but  you  knew  that  this  man  who  was  running 
for  sheriff  was  on  that  slate? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Why,  certainly. 

Senator  King.  But  you  gave  as  a  reason  to  Mr.  Insull  for  the 
contribution,  that  your  friend  was  interested  in  the  election  of  a 
sheriff. 

Mr.  Schuyler.  And  the  whole  Republican  county  slate. 

Senator  King.  You  mentioned  the  sheriff  as  the  reason? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Of  course  I  did. 

Senator  King.  As  the  reason  for  the  $20,000. 

Mr.  Schuyler.  That  was  not  the  sole  reason,  at  all. 

Senator  King.  Did  you  understand  that  both  Mr.  Francis  and  Mr. 
Harding  were  interested  in  the  county  ticket? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Certainly. 

Senator  King.  They  were  the  same  organization? 


42 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


Mr.  Schuyler.  No ;  I  did  not  say  they  were  the  same  organization ; 
but  as  far  as  I  can  recollect,  on  that  county  the  factions  were  all 
together. 

Senator  King.  Then  why  did  you  divide  your  contribution?  Why 
did  you  not  have  one  contribution  and  pay  to  one  man,  the  treasurer 
of  the  organization? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  They  were  two  different  friends  thaYhad  separately 
talked  to  me. 

Senator  King.  Why  did  you  not  pay  it  to  the  organization? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  could  not  tell  you. 

Senator  King.  To  the  treasurer  of  the  organization? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  The  treasurer  did  not  make  any  request.  I  do 
not  even  know  who  he  was. 

Senator  King.  Are  you  the  political  adviser  for  Mr.  Insull? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  would  not  say  so;  no,  sir. 

Senator  King.  Are  you  the  one  that  manages  his  political  cam¬ 
paigns,  if  he  has  any,  and  determines  whom  he  shall  make  contri¬ 
butions  to? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  As  far  as  I  know  he  does  not  have  any  political 
campaigns. 

Senator  King.  How  did  you  happen  to  go  to  him  and  advise  to 
make  these  two  contributions? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  For  the  reason  that  I  have  told  you;  that  he  has 
been  interested  in  politics  for  a  long  time,  and  I  have  Advised  him  in 
specific  instances  before. 

Senator  King.  Did  you  advise  him  to  make  any  other  contri¬ 
butions  than  these  two? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  None  other  than  what  I  have  told  you  about. 

Senator  King.  In  these  two  elections.  Well,  you  have - 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No;  I  have  told  you  all  I  know. 

Senator  King.  Of  course  you  knew  something  about  the  other 
contributions? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes;  but  I  told  you — I  testified. 

Senator  King.  In  your  testimony  before? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  You  speak  of  Mr.  Insull  being  interested  in 
politics.  His  sole  interest  was  manifested  in  contributions,  I  take  it? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Well,  you  will  have  to  ask  him  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know  of  anything  outside  of  that? 
He  does  not  make  speeches  or  write  articles? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Well,  yes.  He  does  not  make  political  speeches, 
but  as  you  know,  Senator,  he  is  certainly  a  public-spirited  citizen. 
He  is  interested  in  many,  many  things. 

The  Chairman.  But  he  manifested  his  interest  in  politics  in  the 
way  of  contributions? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  He  may  in  other  ways,  for  all  I  know. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  only  way  you  know  of? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  In  this  particular  instance;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  Has  he  been  manifesting  this  same  spirit  of 
interest  by  contributing  $200,000  in  other  campaigns,  right  along? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  could  not  tell  you  that. 

The  Chairman.  You  do  not  know? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No. 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  43 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  of  his  having  ever  before  contrib¬ 
uted  any  such  sums  of  money  as  are  mentioned  here? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No;  I  do  not  know  of  anything. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  not  in  the  past  been  the  purveyor  for 
him  of  these  large  sums  of  money,  such  as  have  been  mentioned  here? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No,  not  large  sums  of  money. 

The  Chairman.  I  refer  to  $20,000  as  a  large  campaign  contribution. 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  have  given  you  all  I  know. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  regularly  he  acts  as  the 
financial  angel  for  some  of  these  organizations,  and  puts  up  money 
right  along  in  large  sums? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Oh,  I  would  not  say  that  is  a  fair  statement. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  not  think  that  is  true? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No,  I  did  not  say  so. 

The  Chairman.  Then  this  is  rather  the  exception,  here,  when  he 
gave  this  large  sum  of  money? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  do  not  know.  I  can  not  speak  for  Mr.  Insull. 

The  Chairman.  Well,  as  far  as  you  have  knowledge? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  would  not  want  to  express  any  opinion  on  that 
subject,  because  it  would  be  only  an  opinion. 

The  Chairman.  There  have  been  some  pretty  heated  controversies 
over  there,  have  there  not,  for  a  number  of  years,  in  relation  to  some 
of  the  Insull  companies,  over  franchises  and  renewal  of  franchises, 
in  Chicago? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  do  not  know  of  any  controversy  in  relation  to 
franchises. 

The  Chairman.  Was  not  Mr.  Insull  in  any  way  interested  in  the 
traction  company? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  He  was  interested  in  the  elevated  roads,  but  their 
franchises  most  of  them  do  not  expire  until  1944  or  1945. 

The  Chairman.  Has  there  not  been  a  long  controversy  in  Chi¬ 
cago — 

Mr.  Schuyler.  On  traction? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes;  they  have  had  traction  in  politics  in  Chicago 
for  over  30  years,  now.  It  has  been  boiling  for  30  years. 

The  Chairman.  And  had  rates  and  fares  and  all  those  contro¬ 
versies  involved? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  There  never  has  been  a  rate  controversy,  so  far  as 
Mr.  Insull  was  concerned.'  He  has  constantly  gone  before  every 
rate-making  body  and  lowered  his  rates,  for  the  last  25  years. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  had  controversies  there,  and  there  are 
controversies  there  now  pending,  with  reference  to  the  franchises  and 
rights  of  these  traction  companies,  are  there  not? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Not  any  companies  that  Mr.  Insull  is  interested 
in,  so  far  as  I  know. 

The  Chairman.  How  about  the  elevated? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  As  I  say,  their  franchises  do  not  expire  until 
1944  or  1945. 

The  Chairman.  I  say  franchises,  and  with  reference  to  the  com¬ 
panies.  I  am  not  limiting  it  to  franchises.  There  are  controversies 
there  right  now  with  reference  to  the  whole  traction  situation? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes;  this  traction  situation  is  a  controversial 
question;  there  is  no  question  about  it. 


44 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 


The  Chairman.  Under  the  proposals  there  now,  there  are  some 
radical  changes  in  the  whole  traction  situation  in  Chicago? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  There  are  negotiations  pending. 

The  Chairman.  Negotiations  have  been  carried  on  for  a  good  while 
with  relation  to  that? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  About  30  years;  yes. 

The  Chairman.  And  they  have  taken  rather  an  acute  form  just 
about  now,  have  they  not? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  would  not  say  so. 

The  Chairman.  Efforts  at  adjustment  and  settlement  and  rewrit¬ 
ing  of  the  contracts,  etc.,  changing  of  lines,  etc.? 
j|?  Mr.  Schuyler.  There  have  been  a  lot  of  conversations,  but  I  have 
not  seen  anything  that  really  looks  serious. 

The  Chairman.  Those  controversies,  you  say,  do  not  look  serious? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Maybe  I  am  all  wrong,  but  up  to  date  they  have 
not. 

The  Chairman.  You  have  not  heard  anything  about  active  work 
along  that  line  being  undertaken? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes;  I  have;  but  it  has  still  been  so  wrapped  up 
in  politics  and  newspaper  controversy  that  it  has  not  come  to  any¬ 
thing. 

The  Chairman.  Those  questions  have,  then,  gotten  into  politics? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  They  have  been  in  politics  for  30  years. 

The  Chairman.  Do  the  Commonwealth  Edison  properties  embrace 
the  street-car  lines,  too? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  think  the  Commonwealth  Edison  has  an  interest 
in  the  elevated  road. 

The  Chairman.  And  has  an  interest  also  in  what  other  public 
utilities? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  do  not  know. 

The  Chairman.  You  know  some  of  them,  do  you  not? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  do  not  think  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Co.  has 
an  interest  in  other  public  utilities. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  subsidiary  companies  it  controls  that 
have  an  interest? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No;  I  think  not.  It  is  almost  strictly — you  would 
call  it  a  Chicago  company. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  its  business? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Furnishing  light  and  power  to  the  city  of  Chicago, 
the  people  who  live  in  it. 

The  Chairman.  What  company  is  it,  then,  with  which  Mr.  Insull 
is  connected  that  is  concerned  to  some  extent  in  the  traction  lines? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  That  would  be  the  Commonwealth.  They  fur¬ 
nish  power  to  the  traction  lines. 

The  Chairman.  Do  they  also  have  some  control  of  the  corporate 
entity  that  controls  these  traction  lines? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Of  the  street-car  companies,  or  the  elevated  road? 

The  Chairman.  The  elevated  road. 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  think  the  elevated  road;  yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  an  important  road  in  Chicago,  is  it  not? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes;  of  course. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  connected  in  any  way  with  the  gas  business? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Is  what? 


SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES  45 

The  Chairman.  Are  any  of  Mr.  InsulFs  companies,  or  is  Mr. 
Insull,  in  any  way  connected  with  the  gas  companies? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Mr.  Insull  is  the  president  of  the  Peoples  Gas¬ 
light  &  Coke  Co. 

The  Chairman.  And  also  of  the  Commonwealth  Edison  Co.? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes,  sir. 

The  Chairman.  Are  there  any  other  of  the  public-service  com¬ 
panies  in  Chicago  that  he  is  interested  in? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Not  in  Chicago,  I  think. 

The  Chairman.  In  various  parts  of  the  State? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes,  there  is  the  Public  Service  and — I  could  not 
give  you  the  names  of  all  of  them. 

The  Chairman.  Where  is  the  Public  Service  Co.  located? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  think  the  Public  Service  Co.  does  business  in 
different  parts  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

The  Chairman.  What  is  its  business? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  That  is  a  light  and  power  company. 

The  Chairman.  It  supplies  light  and  power  to  many  towns  and 
cities  in  Illinois? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes,  sir;  I  think  so.  I  do  not  remember  them. 
I  can  not  give  you  accurate  information. 

The  Chairman.  I  am  just  asking  for  the  information  you  gather 
from  your  contacts. 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Yes. 

The  Chairman.  Does  this  company  also  control  similar  industries 
in  other  States  than  Illinois? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  think  not,  that  particular  one.  I  do  not  believe 
it  does,  although  I  could  not  tell  you. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  the  capitalization  of  the 
Commonwealth  is? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No;  I  do  not. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  what  the  capitalization  of  any  of 
these  other  companies  you  mention  is? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  could  not  give  you  any  of  those  figures  accurately 
without  looking  them  up. 

The  Chairman.  Is  it  possible  that  Mr.  InsulFs  interest  in  public 
affairs  has  some  relation  to  his  interest  in  these  companies,  in  your 
opinion? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Well,  if  I  were  in  his  position  I  would  want  to 
maintain  friendly  relations  with  people  in  public  life. 

The  Chairman.  You  would  contribute  as  he  contributes? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Would  I? 

The  Chairman.  Yes. 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  think  I  would. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  reason  he  made  these  contributions? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  would  not  say  that. 

The  Chairman.  That  is  the  reason  you  recommended  them,  was 
it  not? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No;  I  can  not  say  that. 

The  Chairman.  What  other  reason  did  you  have? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Mr.  Insull  has  always  been  personally  interested 
in  politics.  He  takes  a  great  interest  in  it,  and  if  you  will  inquire, 
you  will  find  that  when  he  is  interested  in  something  he  always  likes 


46  SENATORIAL  CAMPAIGN  EXPENDITURES 

to  be  helpful.  You  know  they  wished  the  Civic  Opera  Co.  on  him  in 
Chicago.  He  did  not  want  that  job. 

The  Chairman.  We  will  not  get  into  that. 

Mr.  Schuyler.  But  that  is  a  very  important  public  service,  and  a 
very  great  one,  and  he  spent  a  lot  of  his  own  money  and  a  lot  of  time 
on  that,  too. 

The  Chairman.  Do  you  know  of  him  making  any  political  con¬ 
tributions  on  account  of  that  opera  company? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  No,  I  do  not;  but  he  has  made  personal  contribu¬ 
tions  without  any  hope  of  any  reward  of  any  name,  nature  or  de¬ 
scription. 

The  Chairman.  Every  man  of  wealth  does  that.  I  am  asking 
you  if  you  want  this  committee  to  understand  that  Mr.  Insull  did 
not  make  these  political  contributions  at  least  in  part  because  of  his 
interest  in  these  great  public  service  companies,  and  on  account  of 
the  fact  that  they  were  mixed  up  in  politics,  as  you  say. 

Mr.  Schuyler.  I  can  only  answer  that  in  this  way,  Senator,  that 
if  I  were  in  his  place,  I  would  have  made  contributions,  on  the  theory 
that  if  I  had  those  vast  companies  to  protect,  I  would  want  to  have 
friendly  and  pleasant  relations  with  people  in  public  office. 

The  Chairman.  And  that  motive,  I  suppose,  entered  into  your 
recommendation  to  him  that  he  put  up  this  $40,000? 

Mr.  Schuyler.  Although  it  has  never  been  discussed,  that  might 
have  been  in  my  own  mind. 

The  Chairman.  I  think  that  is  all. 

(The  witness  left  the  witness  stand.) 

The  Chairman.  Is  there  any  further  testimony  at  this  time  to  be 
offered  by  Mr.  Insull  or  by  Mr.  Schuyler  on  the  phases  of  this  matter 
with  which  they  are  concerned?  If  not,  in  so  far  as  the  testimony 
of  these  individuals  is  concerned,  we  will  regard  it  as  closed.  But 
I  do  not  want  to  be  misunderstood.  The  committee  may  see  fit  to 
inquire  further  and  from  other  witnesses  at  its  own  pleasure. 

Your  committee,  as  above  stated,  has  previously  reported  the 
conduct  of  the  said  witnesses,  Samuel  Insull  and  Daniel  J.  Schuyler, 
to  the  Senate  and,  prior  to  their  appearance  before  your  committee 
on  January  7,  1928,  recommended  to  the  Senate  that  they  be  cited 
for  contempt. 

Your  committee  therefore  reports  the  additional  facts  as  aforesaid 
to  the  Senate  for  such  further  action  as  the  Senate  may  deem  proper. 


o 


1 


I 


* 


/ 


